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, a brief filed by the government in a patent case raising a question related to the Appointments Clause, and an upcoming argument in another patent case raising questions related to standing. Here are the details.
Since our last update, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in a veterans case that attracted an amicus brief.
In this case, the Federal Circuit considered whether the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed a claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In short, in this case the Federal Circuit held that 10 U.S.C. “§ 1552(f) does not prohibit [the Army Board for Correction of Military Records] changing [a veteran’s] DD-214 in order for it to be accurate and complete” should the veteran later be awarded disability benefits. As a result, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. For more on the opinion, check out our opinion summary.
In this patent case, Concert appeals a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that “Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” In its opening brief, among other things, Concert argued that “[t]he official who denied Concert’s request for Director review was not a properly appointed principal officer.” An amicus brief in support of Concert was filed by Bald Girls Do Lunch, which emphasized how a “long-felt, unmet need” was satisfied “by the innovative . . . treatment claimed in Appellant’s ’149 Patent.” Since our last report about this case, the United States, filed its brief. In it, the government argues that the constitutional challenges made by Concert have already been rejected by Federal Circuit.
Upcoming Oral Argument
Next month, one case that attracted amicus briefs will be argued.
In this patent case, Uniloc USA, Inc. presents the following four issues:
- “Whether Uniloc, the undisputed owner of the patent-in-suit at the time the complaint was filed, had standing under Article III of the Constitution to sue for infringement of the patent.”
- “Whether the district court erred in concluding that Uniloc lacked Article III standing based on the theoretical possibility that Fortress, Uniloc’s secured lender, could sublicense the patent-in-suit.”
- “Whether the district court erred in concluding that Fortress had the ability to sublicense the patent, including for past infringement, at the time the complaint was filed.”
- “Whether Uniloc 2017 LLC, which acquired the patent-in-suit while this action was pending, should be substituted as plaintiff.”