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. With respect to these cases, since our last update we highlight one new opinion in government contract case, one new patent case raising a question related to Article III standing, and one new argument recap in a patent case involving a challenge to a district court’s claim construction. Here are the details.
New Opinion
Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States
In this government contract case, Textron appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or in the alternative for summary judgment. In particular, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Textron’s claim as time-barred under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Judges Prost and Clevenger, affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that Textron’s claim had accrued by early 2013 and was untimely when filed in 2020. For more information, check out our opinion summary.
New Case
A.L.M. Holding Company v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs have Article III standing. In their opening brief, the plaintiffs argue that, as “the undisputed owners of the patent-in-suit,” they suffered an “injury in fact” and therefore have standing. In this regard, they note that “monetary harm suffices” to establish standing. They assert the Federal Circuit “leaves open two approaches” to establishing standing. Under what they call the “broad approach,” they argue “exclusionary rights are sufficient but not necessary for a patent owner to have” standing, but contend monetary harm is enough “regardless of exclusionary rights.” Under what they call the “narrow approach,” “‘at least one exclusionary right’ is necessary” for standing. The plaintiffs allege that they have standing under either approach.
In their response brief, the defendants argue the “Plaintiffs have not satisfied (and cannot satisfy)” their burden of showing that “they possess at least one exclusionary right to the patent-in-suit.” They assert that an agreement “transferred all exclusionary rights to the patents-in-suit from Plaintiffs” to a non-party named Ingevity. Even though the plaintiffs “identify six rights that they purportedly retained” under the relevant agreement, the defendants suggest “no court has ever found that any” of those rights “are exclusionary.” They argue “an entity that exclusively licensed its patents to an unrelated third-party” does not have Article III standing. Only the “unrelated third-party who then possessed the sole right to grant sublicenses under those patents—and the sole right to settle litigation relating to those patents by granting a license”—has standing, they contend. The defendants suggest the Federal Circuit refuse “a wholsesale reconsideration of its standing jurisprudence; exclusionary rights are the touchstone of the Article III inquiry in patent cases, and they should remain so.”
The case attracted an amicus brief by Glycosyn LLC in support of the plaintiffs and reversal.
Argument Recap
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc.
This is a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. appeals a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. Judges Taranto, Chen, and Hughes heard the oral argument earlier this month. For highlights of the oral argument, check out our argument recap.