Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted 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 seven recent opinions, one recent order, and two newly-identified cases. Here are the details.
Opinions and Orders
Since our last update, Federal Circuit panels have issued seven opinions and one dispositive order in cases that attracted amicus briefs. Three of the opinions came in patent cases, two in trade cases, one in a veterans case, and one in a takings case. The order came in a patent case.
In re United States
In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a petition by the International Trade Commission for a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of International Trade to retain the confidentiality of questionnaire responses and to permit the Commission to continue its practice of automatically designating questionnaire responses as confidential. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the Federal Circuit affirmed the order of the CIT. See our opinion summary for more information.
In re United States
In this companion case, the Federal Circuit considered the International Trade Commission’s appeal from a denial by the Court of International Trade of a motion. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the panel dismissed the case as moot. See our opinion summary for more information.
Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc.
In this patent case, the Arltons appealed from a summary judgment entered by the Central District of California, which held that AeroVironment could not be held liable for infringement. AeroVironment cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Prost and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court. See our opinion summary for more information.
Hamill v. Collins
In this case, Mr. Hamill appealed an order dismissing his petition after the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concluded his petition was moot and that no exception to mootness applied. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Chen and Stark, the panel vacated the order and remanded the case for the lower court to reconsider a question related to mootness. See our opinion summary for more information.
Apple Inc. v. Squires
In this patent case, Apple appealed a judgment of the Northern District of California, which rejected challenges to instructions issued by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding discretionary denials of petitions for inter partes review proceedings. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Lourie and Chen, the panel affirmed the district court’s judgment. See our opinion summary for more information.
REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
In this patent case, REGENXBIO appealed a decision of the District of Delaware, which granted a motion for summary judgment and held the asserted claims to be ineligible for patenting. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. See our opinion summary for more information.
Ligado Networks LLC v. United States
In this takings case, the court considered an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Federal Claims presenting questions related to a radio license issued under the Communications Act. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Moore and Stoll, the panel affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. For more details, see our summary of the opinion.
In re Intel Corporation
In this case, Intel petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to challenge the Patent Trademark Office’s denial of its request for institution of inter partes review. In a per curiam order, a panel consisting of Judges Taranto, Mayer, and Stark denied the petition. See our order summary for more information.
New Cases
Since our last update, we have identified two cases that attracted amicus briefs.
In re Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co.
In this case, Kangxi filed a petition for a writ of mandamus presenting the following questions:
- “Did the USPTO violate due process by retroactively applying new institution rules to IPR petitions, after they had been paid for and filed, in a manner that destroyed their viability?”
- “Did the USPTO exceed its statutory authority by creating a ‘settled expectations’ rule untethered to the AIA?”
- “Did the USPTO violate the APA and AIA by creating a ‘settled expectations’ rule that was incoherent, arbitrary, and capricious?”
- “Did the USPTO violate the APA and AIA by skipping notice-and-comment procedures for its ‘settled expectations’ rule?”
One amicus brief was filed in support of Kangxi and the petition for relief:
In re Tessell, Inc.
In this case, Tessell filed a petition for a writ of mandamus presenting the following question:
- “Whether mandamus is justified because the Acting Director exceeded her statutory authority by applying assignor estoppel in contravention of clear and unambiguous statutory language and this Court’s precedent?”
- “Whether mandamus is justified because the Acting Director violated the APA and Tessell’s constitutional rights by applying assignor estoppel?”
Two amicus briefs were filed in support of Tessell and the petition for relief.