Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court by a pro se petitioner, and a brief in opposition was submitted in a patent case related to the written description requirement. Here are the details.
There is no new activity to report.
In Arunachalam v. Kronos Inc., a pro se petitioner presented the court with seven questions.
Brief in Opposition
Mylan Pharmaceuticals filed a brief in opposition to the petition in Biogen International GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case raising a question about the written description requirement. According to Mylan, “Biogen tries to recast the court of appeals’ opinion as creating a ‘new, more stringent written description requirement.’” Mylan argues, however, that the Federal Circuit “merely found that the district court did not clearly err in rejecting” one of Biogen’s theories, emphasizing that Federal Circuit “did not create new law.” Moreover, Mylan contends that “Biogen’s position, not the judgment below, . . . would chill investment in innovation and harm the public interest.” Mylan also denies Biogen’s contention that the Federal Circuit “is sharply divided on the question of the written-description standard,” and notes that “this fact-bound dispute is not an appropriate vehicle to resolve broader questions about written description jurisprudence.” As a result, Mylan contends, “[t]he petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.”