Federal Circuit, Behind Protest Barrier, Cancels Arguments

Reported by Perry Cooper on

The Federal Circuit cancelled telephonic oral arguments for Friday due to building inaccessibility. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sits in the National Courts Building on Lafayette Square where protests have been held over the last week following the death of George Floyd. The court made a statement saying:

The Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims will be closed to the public and staff through at least June 7 “in order to permit officials to make preparations to accommodate large crowds expected to gather in the vicinity of the White House over the coming weekend.”

Three cases were scheduled for argument, but will be rescheduled for a later date.

For more on this news, see our coverage. For information on any further closings, see the Federal Circuit’s announcements web-page.

Section 285 Attorney’s Fees are not available for Pure IPRs. How much does that matter?

Reported by Zachary Silbersher on

In Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Almirall, LLC, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision finding that § 285 does not authorize the court to award attorneys fees to the prevailing party in an IPR proceeding. This leaves some options open, as the Court did not expressly rule out the possibility of awarding fees for work arising out of an appeal from an IPR proceeding to the Federal Circuit. Many IPRs arise as a parallel to pending district court cases indicating a potential limit on the reach of Amneal. Zachary Silbersher explains:

The more pressing question is whether §285 fees can be awarded in connection with an IPR proceeding that was parallel to a district court action, and the two proceedings were interpreted as part of an inclusive whole.

For more on this case, see our coverage.

Child Artists, Rejoice: Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement and Invalidity Judgements Against Designer of Chalk Holders

Reported by Robert Razzano on

In May, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp, LLC. Lanard Toys designed and sold chalk holders resembling No. 2 pencils, obtaining a patent for the design. Ja-Ru Inc. produced a similar chalk holder and Lanard sued, asserting claims under its design patent among others. The Federal Circuit found Ja Ru’s product was proportioned differently than the design in Lanard’s patent and no infringement had occurred. Robert Razzano sums up the result as follows:

Thanks to the Federal Circuit, it should be safe for our children to draw on our driveways without fear of a patent infringement lawsuit. Whether their chalk holders will keep their clothes from getting ruined remains an open question.

For more on this case, see our coverage.