This week, the Federal Circuit will hold 16 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 58 cases. Amicus briefs were filed in four of these cases. The first of these is a patent case dealing with patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The second case addresses the issue of obviousness-type double patenting. The third is a takings case involving a notice of interim trail use. The fourth case focuses on invalidity and infringement standards for the administration of a multiple sclerosis treatment. Continue reading for more information about each of the featured cases.
As previewed on this blog, this case focuses on the 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether a patent claiming a method and process for “automatically routing telephone calls and other communications in a multinetwork environment using a physical controller” covers “abstract ideas” that are not patent eligible subject matter. In this appeal, Voip-Pal.com argues that the claims at issue satisfy the two-step patent eligibility test set forth in Alice and Mayo. Twitter, in opposition to Voip-Pal.com, argues that the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea, routing a phone called based on characteristics of the parties, and lack the inventive concept required to become patentable subject matter. This case has attracted the attention of those in the telecom industry, as evidenced by the filed amicus brief.
Lewis Hudnell will argue on behalf of Voip-Pal.com.
Mark Perry will argue on behalf of Twitter.
This case is scheduled to be argued on Tuesday, March 3rd at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 402.
As previewed on this blog, in this case the appellants (Sandoz Inc., Sandoz International GMBH, and Sandoz GMBH) contend that the patents-in-suit are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), lack of written description, and obviousness. In this appeal, they argue that the appellees (Immunex Corporation, Amgen Manufacturing, Ltd., and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. ) have improperly extended its patent term by violating the equitable prohibition on ODP. But even if Immunex has not committed ODP, they argue that the patents do not meet §112’s statutory requirements and fail under §103 because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art. Immunex, on the other hand, argues that the ODP standard put forth by Sandoz is an importation of the “‘all-substantial-rights’ test from prudential standing into ODP.” They argue that this importation would be unprecedented and lead to perverse consequences. Further, Immunex contends that the written description and obviousness issues present questions of fact reviewed for clear error on appeal, and then argues that Sandoz failed to show clear error at the trial court on both issues.
William M. Jay will argue on behalf of the appellants.
Constantine L. Trela, Jr. will argue on behalf of the appellees.
This case is scheduled to be argued on Wednesday, March 4th at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 402.
As previewed on this blog, in this case Caquelin contends that a notice of interim trail use (“NITU”) “amounted to a government-authorized physical occupation of the underlying property for purposes of takings analysis.” Arguing against the claim that the NITU is equivalent to a physical taking, the government argued in its brief that the NITU did not create a new easement, did not expand an easement, nor did it permanently prevent the owner from “regaining the unencumbered fee.” This case reaches the Federal Circuit following a judgment in favor of Caquelin by the Court of Federal Claims. This case has been viewed as important to many in the legal field, as it attracted three amicus briefs in, with support for both parties.
Erika Kranz will argue on behalf of the government.
Thomas Stewart will argue on behalf of Caquelin.
This case is scheduled to be argued on Thursday, March 5th at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 203.
As previewed on this blog, this case focuses on invalidity and infringement standards for the administration of IFN-β-related polypeptides, which can be used to treat multiple sclerosis. In this appeal, the appellants (EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer Inc.) argue that the patent-in-suit lacks novelty because there is “[s]ubstantial evidence . . . that recombinant IFN-β polypeptides are identical to their native counterparts.” Further, the appellants argue that they have not infringed because two key process steps were “not performed in the United States during the patent’s term.” Lastly, appellants contend that the patent-in-suit is directed to a natural phenomenon and therefore not patentable. Biogen, in opposition, argues that the patent-in-suit was not anticipated by the prior are because it claims “methods of treatment using recombinant interferon-beta made in a non-human host cell,” as opposed to the prior art which discloses only treatments with “native, human interferon-beta harvested from human cells.”
Mark A. Perry will argue on behalf of the appellants.
Nicholas Groombridge will argue on behalf of the appellees.
This case is scheduled to be argued on Friday, March 6th at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 402.