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 three cases with upcoming oral arguments: two patent cases and one takings case. Additionally, there is one patent case with new briefing.
Upcoming Oral Arguments
Next month three cases that attracted amicus briefs will be argued.
In this patent case, Thales presents the following three issues:
- “Did the district court err in finding that Thales did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its counterclaim requesting that the district court declare FRAND terms and conditions for Philips’ worldwide SEP portfolio?”
- “Did the district court err in holding that Philips’ pursuit of exclusionary relief against Thales – a willing licensee – in the ITC was consistent with Philips’ contractual FRAND obligations to ETSI and its duty of good faith to meet these obligations, and consequently that Thales failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of Thales’ claim that Philips breached its FRAND obligations?”
- “Did the district court abuse its discretion in holding that Thales did not demonstrate irreparable harm through unrebutted factual declarations setting out that Philips’ continued pursuit of an ITC exclusion order against Thales’ products causes Thales to lose goodwill and reputation, customer opportunities, and marketshare?”
In this takings case, Memmer presents the following two issues:
- “Does the issuance of a NITU by the STB trigger a per se categorical physical taking under the Trails Act, rendering any ‘causation’ standard inappropriate?”
- “Does the duration of the taking end when the railroad’s authorization to abandon expires if the railroad thereafter fails to consummate federal abandonment and state law abandonment occurred during the pendency of the NITU?”
In this patent case, Thaler presents the following issue:
- “[W]hether an AI-Generated Invention is patentable. The USPTO claims that it is not, filing a summary judgment motion to that effect, which was granted by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appellant challenges this Denial and the Summary Judgment on statutory and constitutional grounds.”
In this patent case, 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.” As we previously reported, Array Networks received support from Veritas Technologies LLC in the form of an amicus brief.
Since our last report about this case, Realtime Data filed its reply brief. In the reply, Realtime Data asserts that the “specific types of data compression” claimed in their patents “and the problems with conventional data compression systems described in the specifications, are unique to the realm of computers and computer networks.” Moreover, Realtime Data asserts that the claims are not abstract despite utilizing some generic components. Additionally, it argues that Array Networks is wrong when it claims that “the patents are not sufficiently specific and ‘simply apply known techniques.’”