Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a blog post reporting how the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a reply brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Judge Newman;
- a blog post highlighting how “a unanimous court rejected the idea that a generics pharmaceutical manufacturer . . . can be held responsible for infringements of patents held by the branded manufacturer . . . based on the decisions of doctors and pharmacies to use the generic compound for patented uses of the drug”;
- a blog post explaining how, when “[c]onfronted with four patents drawn to the same basic invention, the Federal Circuit held one group of claims ineligible and a second group eligible”; and
- a blog post discussing how “more than a dozen patent matters now sit before the [Supreme] Court.”
Rose Esfandari penned a blog post for IPWatchdog reporting how the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a reply brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Judge Newman. Esfandari highlights how “Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer of the NCLA, stated that ‘if the Supreme Court denies certiorari in this case, it will sound the death knell for judicial independence because it will allow federal judges to sideline their own colleagues in a manner never contemplated nor countenanced by the Constitution.'”
Ronald Mann authored a blog post for SCOTUSblog highlighting how “a unanimous court rejected the idea that a generics pharmaceutical manufacturer . . . can be held responsible for infringements of patents held by the branded manufacturer . . . based on the decisions of doctors and pharmacies to use the generic compound for patented uses of the drug.” Mann suggests that, “when a generic drug is released for a branded drug that has both patented and non-patented uses, doctors and pharmacists routinely and indiscriminately use the generic for both uses, largely because state law often compels them to do so.” For more information, check out our case page in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
Michael Borella wrote a blog post for Patent Docs explaining how, when “[c]onfronted with four patents drawn to the same basic invention, the Federal Circuit held one group of claims ineligible and a second group eligible.” Borella contends the “result is about as clean a side-by-side of result-oriented claiming and specific-implementation claiming as one is likely to find (even though the difference between these approaches is blurrier in practice than the Court suggests).” The case is in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc.
Dennis Crouch published a blog post for PatentlyO discussing how “more than a dozen patent matters now sit before the [Supreme] Court.” Crouch suggests the “largest focus involves the recurring question: how much discretion does the USPTO Director hold in refusing to act, and whether courts may review that refusal.” According to Crouch, “Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp. . . . is the leading case right now, challenging the agency’s ‘settled expectations’ basis for denying inter partes review proceedings of patents that have been in force for 6+ years.”