Justices Craft Their Own Remedy for Violation of Constitution’s Appointments Clause – George Quillin and Jeanne Gills post to SCOTUSblog about the Supreme Court’s decision this week in United States v. Arthrex.
Yu v. Apple Settles It: The CAFC is Suffering from a Prolonged Version of Alice in Wonderland Syndrome – Gene Quinn reports on IPWatchDog that “the Federal Circuit seems to be dealing with an exceptionally prolonged and worsening version of Alice in Wonderland syndrome.”
Amarin Rebuffed in High Court Bid to Revive Vascepa Patents – Susan Decker and Greg Stohr report for Bloomberg that the Supreme Court “declined to consider a bid by Amarin Corp. to revive six patents on the heart medicine Vascepa.”
Supreme Court Rebuffs Cost-Sharing Reduction Payment Appeal; $20 Million For State-Based Marketplaces – On HealthAffairs.org, Katie Keith notes “that two August decisions by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will stand.”
Justices Craft Their Own Remedy for Violation of Constitution’s Appointments Clause
Reported by George Quillin and Jeanne Gills on SCOTUSblog
In a post authored on SCOTUSblog, George Quillin and Jeanne Gills discuss the Supreme Court’s decision this week in United States v. Arthrex. They highlight how the “justices ruled 5-4 that the ‘unreviewable authority’ of administrative patent judges meant those APJs were appointed in violation of the Constitution’s appointments clause.” Quillin and Gills also discuss how “[t]he justices . . . ruled 7-2 that the remedy was one of the court’s own making — that the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office now has the discretion to review those APJ decisions.”
See our coverage of the case here.
Yu v. Apple Settles It: The CAFC is Suffering from a Prolonged Version of Alice in Wonderland Syndrome
Reported by Gene Quinn on IPWatchDog.com
In this article on IPWatchDog, Gene Quinn reports on Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank “where the Supreme Court most recently announced the patent eligibility test for computer implemented innovations.” Quinn describes how the Supreme Court is suffering from Alice in Wonderland Syndrome, and that “[t]he syndrome has recently reached an acute stage.” According to Quinn, if Alice were “applied consistently to all similarly situated patents with similarly drafted claims,” it “would result in many hundreds of thousands of clearly tangible inventions that one can actually hold in one’s hand being mysteriously declared to be ‘abstract.’”
Amarin Rebuffed in High Court Bid to Revive Vascepa Patents
Reported by Susan Decker and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg.com
On Bloomberg.com, Susan Decker and Greg Stohr explain that “the [Supreme Court] justices turned away a petition in which Amarin claimed a federal judge in Nevada erred in her analysis that invalidated the patents.” Decker and Stohr note that the Federal Circuit “summarily affirmed the judge last year without issuing a formal opinion just one day after hearing arguments.” Decker and Stohr further quote LiquidPower Specialty Products Inc. (a developer of ways to improve pipeline flow), which stated that “the Federal Circuit’s rules for analyzing whether patents are obvious ‘has significantly increased the likelihood that LSPI’s patents will be improperly invalidated based on hindsight bias.'”
For more information on Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., see our coverage.
Supreme Court Rebuffs Cost-Sharing Reduction Payment Appeal; $20 Million For State-Based Marketplaces
Reported by Katie Keith on HealthAffairs.org
In an article on HealthAffairs.org, Katie Keith comments on two Federal Court decisions by a three judge panel, which decided that “insurers are entitled to . . . unpaid [cost-sharing reduction payments], but the total amount they are owed must be offset” by certain excess premium tax credits. Keith explains that the “panel agreed with the lower courts that [the relevant statutory provision] imposes an ‘unambiguous obligation’ on the government to make [cost-sharing reduction] payments to insurers and that this obligation is enforceable for damages in court.”