Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight a disposition in a veterans case, two new patent cases that attracted amicus briefs, and a reply brief in a patent case. Here are the details.


Since our last update, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in case that attracted three amicus briefs.

Wolfe v. McDonough

In this veterans case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs asked the Federal Circuit to reverse the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which “granted a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Wolfe on behalf of a class of claimants to invalidate 38 C.F.R. § 17.1005(a)(5) and require [the Department of Veterans Affairs] to readjudicate and grant claims for reimbursement of coinsurance and deductibles.” In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Reyna and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. See our opinion summary for more information.

New Cases

Since our last update two new patent cases attracted amicus briefs.

Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc.

In its opening brief, Realtime Data argues that “district court’s orders granting Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss should be reversed, and the asserted patents should be found patent eligible under § 101.” Realtime Data asserts that the “district court erred in finding that all 211 claims of the seven asserted patents, across three distinct families, are invalid under § 101.”

In its response brief, Array Networks argues that the district court “did not err in resolving patent eligibility at the pleading stage.” Array Networks asserts the court’s analysis was proper and “considered Realtime’s claim as a whole.” Array Networks maintains the patent claims at issue “do not focus on a specific asserted improvement,” are “generic” and used in “conventional ways,” and “are directed to abstract ideas.”

This case attracted an amicus brief from Veritas Technologies in support of Array Networks.

C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc.

In its opening brief, C.R. Bard contends that the district court’s “judgment of invalidity should be reversed or, alternatively vacated.” It argues “the district court erred” in determining “at Alice step one that the claims were not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.” Additionally, the district court erred, it argues, by basing its conclusion on a record insufficient “as a matter of law to establish that the patents lack an inventive concept at Alice step two.”

Medical Components, in its response brief, asserts that the district court’s decision was “well-reasoned . . . and should be affirmed.”

This case attracted amicus briefs from Smiths Medical ASD, Inc. and Angiodynamics, Inc. in support of Medical Components.

New Briefing

Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc.

In this patent case, Personalized Media Communications appeals a district court’s decision to overturn a jury verdict by applying “the equitable doctrine of prosecution latches.” As we previously reported, Personalized Media Communications received support in the form of an amicus brief filed by the “Fair Inventing Fund.”

Since our last report about this case, Personalized Media Communications filed its reply brief. In it, Personalized Media Communications argues the “district court’s decision to set aside the jury’s verdict based on prosecution laches is inequitable and unsupportable.” Moreover, it argues, it “did not act egregiously and Apple has no intervening rights.” Therefore, Personalized Media Communications asserts, the “decision below . . . should be reversed.”