Panel Activity

Here is an 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 new briefing in a patent case and recent oral arguments in a trademark case, a veterans case, and a takings case. Here are the details.

New Briefing

Since our last update there is one case with new briefing.

AliveCor, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

In this patent case, AliveCor, Inc. appealed a determination of no Section 337 violation. AliveCor argues the “the Commission legally erred” in ruling certain claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In addition, AliveCor argues a “non-infringement determination should be reversed.” Apple, Inc. cross appealed, arguing the Federal Circuit should reverse the Commission’s finding of a Section 337 violation and its entry of remedial orders. With respect to its cross-appeal, Apple argues the “Commission erred in finding infringement . . . by ignoring the plain meaning of the asserted claims.” Furthermore, Apple argues the “Commission erroneously held that AliveCor’s patent claims are not obvious.”

The International Trade Commission filed a response brief. It addressed Apple’s contentions, arguing the “Commission properly construed the limitation” in question and, “[u]nder that construction, Apple does not dispute that its accused products infringe.” In addressing Alivecor’s arguments, the Commission argued “[s]ubstantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that Apple’s accused products do not infringe.” It further argued the Commission correctly determined that the relevant claims “are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and merely recite activities that physicians routinely conduct, using conventional and generic sensors in their ordinary manner to measure cardiac activity.”

Since our last report about this case, Omron Healthcare, Inc. filed an amicus brief in support of the International Trade Commission’s finding of a domestic industry. Omron argues the Commission’s purpose is to “protect American industry against unfair foreign competition . . . and declining to protect a U.S. firm’s domestic investment . . . countermands the legislative purpose of 337.” Furthermore, Omron argues a “failure to sustain the ITC’s domestic industry findings has ramifications beyond this case,” including on innovation in commercial software products.

Argument Recaps

Since our last update, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in three cases that attracted amicus briefs.

In re Chestek PLLC

In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of Chestek’s trademark application based on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. The PTO argued that the government added the domicile requirement rule in response to “huge influx in improper and likely fraudulent applications” and that the rule is not “arbitrary or capricious.” Here is our argument recap.

Beaudette v. McDonough

In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to hear appeals of adverse decisions pertaining to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. Beaudette argued that the “Board can decide what amounts to clinical or judgmental treatment and therefore” what is subject to review. Here is our argument recap.

City of Fresno v. United States

In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment related to breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims. The plaintiffs argue the trial court erred both in concluding that the contractual water rights in question were subordinate to the rights of others during a drought and by dismissing takings claims for lack of standing. Here is our argument recap.