This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene eleven panels to consider 50 cases this week. Of these 50 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 40. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.
As explained in this pro se vaccine case’s argument preview, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys, J. Kain Day and Ginger D. Anders, to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal.
Dimasi argues the Special Master’s determinations were erroneous because “[s]everal records . . . were missing from [her] file and therefore not considered in the decision.” She also argues the “Special Master admits that [her] attorney did not address [her] pre-vaccination history during [her] case but opines that this is not grounds for abandonment (even though [she] was not represented at all on the issue for which [she] was denied).”
In response, the government argues the “Special Master did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for leave to file additional materials.” The government also points out how “the Special Master concluded that [the] petitioner did not explain what caused the alleged mistake beyond the general allegation that her attorney did not represent her, and determined that the medical records were reasonably within petitioner’s control.”
One amicus brief was filed by the appointed attorneys in support of DiMasi’s appeal.
J. Kain Day will argue for Dimasi.
Caroline Lopez will argue for the government.
This argument is scheduled to take place on Monday, June 5 in Courtroom 201 at 2:00 PM Eastern.
As explained in our argument preview, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing tying and trade secret claims.
Teradata argues that, “in excluding testimony of Teradata’s economics expert, the district court misapplied antitrust law and misapprehended its gatekeeping role.” It also maintains the district court’s “trade-secret ruling misinterpreted governing agreements and improperly resolved factual disputes.”
In response, SAP SE argues the “district court correctly granted summary judgment to SAP on Teradata’s tying claim” because the claim was “appropriately analyzed under the rule of reason,” the claim “depended on an unreliable expert opinion,” and it “failed to present evidence of substantial anticompetitive effects within the ‘tied’ market.” As for the trade-secret claim, SAP contends “the district court also correctly granted summary judgment to SAP” because “Teradata failed to comply with the confidentiality provisions” in certain agreements and those “agreements authorize SAP to use the [allegedly misappropriated trade secret] in any product.”
Two amicus briefs were filed in support of reversal by the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, and numerous economists.
Deanne E. Maynard will argue for Teradata.
Kannon K. Shanmugam will argue for SAP SE.
This argument is scheduled to take place on Thursday, June 8 in Courtroom 201 at 10:00 AM Eastern.
In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect I”)
As explained in our argument preview, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding patent claims unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting.
Cellect argues the “Board erred in construing the claimed ‘time select switch . . . for selectively varying integration periods’ as not requiring the circuitry that performs the variation of interval periods.” Cellect then contends that “the Board compounded its error by applying its incorrect construction to its obviousness analysis.”
In response, the Patent and Trademark Office argues the “Board correctly construed the term ‘time select switch’ . . . as not requiring” certain circuitry. It also contends “the Board’s underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and its ultimate conclusion of obviousness-type double patenting is correct as a matter of law.”
Jonathan Caplan will argue for Cellect.
Kakoli Caprihan will argue for the PTO.
This argument is scheduled to take place on Friday, June 9 in Courtroom 402 at 10:00 AM Eastern.
In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect II”)
As explained in our argument preview, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Cellect argues “the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting simply does not apply to Cellect’s Challenged Patents, because they are related and would have expired on the same day but for receiving [Patent Term Adjustments] pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(b).” Furthermore, Cellect contends, “[d]ouble patenting exists to prevent two equitable considerations, neither of which are present here: an unjust timewise extension of patent term through manipulative prosecution, and harassing litigation filed by multiple patent owners that split multiple patents for the same invention between them.”
In response, the Patent and Trademark Office argues “Cellect does not dispute that the challenged patents and reference patents are commonly owned, that the challenged patents expired after the reference patents, and that all of the challenged claims are patentably indistinct over claims in the reference patents.” As a result, the government contends, “the Board correctly determined that Cellect’s claims in the challenged patents are unpatentable under [obviousness-type double patenting] over the claims in the cited reference patents.”
Six amicus briefs were filed in this case. Three amicus briefs supporting reversal were filed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Intellectual Property Owners Association, and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. Three amicus briefs were filed in support of the PTO by Alvogen PB Research & Development LLC; the Association for Accessible Medicine; and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Paul J. Andre will argue for Cellect.
Kakoli Caprihan will argue for the PTO.
This argument is also scheduled to take place on Friday, June 9 in Courtroom 402 at 10:00 AM Eastern, immediately after Cellect I.