Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Supreme Court granted a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in a patent case addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent Infringement. A new petition was filed in a patent case addressing eligibility. Waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the same case addressing eligibility and another patent case addressing appellate procedure. And, finally, an amicus brief was filed in veterans disability benefits case. Here are the details.
Granted Petition
Since our last update, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc, a patent case decided by the Federal Circuit. In it, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the District of Delaware, which dismissed an inducement claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit held Amarin Pharma’s complaint “at least plausibly state a claim for induced infringement.” The Supreme Court will review the following questions:
- “Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use?”
- “When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a ‘generic version’ and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?”
Pending Petitions
New Petitions
Since our last update, a new petition has been filed in United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A., a patent case. In the petition, United Services Automobile Association asks the Supreme Court to review the following questions:
- “Whether the Federal Circuit has wrongly extended the prohibition on patenting an ‘abstract idea’—such as mathematical formulae, fundamental economic practices, or methods of organizing human activity—to also prohibit patenting concrete technological processes.”
- “Whether the Federal Circuit has wrongly held that, as a matter of law, a computer-implemented technological invention is patent-eligible only if it claims improvements to computer functionality itself.”
Waivers of the Right to Respond
Since our last update, waivers of the right to respond to petitions have been filed in the following cases:
- Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. WhereverTV, Inc. (patent case addressing appellate procedure)
- United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A. (patent eligibility)
Amicus Brief
Since our last update, an amicus brief was filed by Military-Veterans Advocacy supporting the petitioner in Siples v. Collins, a veterans disability benefits case. The petition asked the Court to review the following question:
- “To establish ‘clear and unmistakable error’ based on legal error, must a veteran show that there was an error of law at the time of the challenged decision which undebatably altered the outcome of the benefits decision, as the regulatory text provides, or must a veteran also show that the meaning of the law itself was undebatable, as the Federal Circuit held?”
In its amicus brief, Military-Veterans Advocacy argues the Federal Circuit “sidestep[ped] its duty to interpret statutes and regulations.” According to Military-Veterans Advocacy, the Federal Circuit’s decision “should be vacated and the case remanded so that the Federal Circuit completes the task assigned to it: interpret the relevant regulation and then—and only then—apply the facts of the case to the law.”