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 new patent case concerning whether the institution process used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board comports with due process, an argument recap in a patent case addressing standing, and an opinion in a veterans case relating to class certification. Here are the details.
Since our last update, one new patent case attracted an amicus brief.
In its opening brief, New Vision contends that the institution process used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “does not meet the ‘jealously protected’ due process standard” based on the “inherent tie between the PTAB’s institution decisions and the substantial revenue generated by those decisions.” New Vision argues that, as a result, “the Director’s decision should be reversed, and the Board’s decision should be vacated.” This case attracted an amicus brief from US Inventor, Inc. in support of New Vision.
Since our last report, the Federal Circuit has heard oral argument in another case that attracted an amicus brief.
In this case, Uniloc appeals a district court’s decision to dismiss its patent infringement action. In particular, Uniloc challenges the district court’s ruling that a license precluded Article III standing because the patent holder no longer held all of the patent’s exclusionary rights. See our argument recap for more 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 an appeal and a cross-appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims certifying a class of veterans. With respect to the appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the court’s class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit held that, “[b]y certifying a class that includes veterans who had not received a Board decision, the Veterans Court exceeded its jurisdiction.” With respect to the cross-appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the “Veterans Court rightly declined to equitably toll the appeal period for claimants who had not timely appealed their denied claims since none of the claimants had alleged, let alone established, the requisite due diligence in pursuing their rights.” We will post an opinion summary later this week.