Here is this month’s 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 two new patent cases; opinions in a Clean Water Act case and a pro se case; a summary affirmance in a patent case; and oral arguments in a pro se case, a trade case, and two related patent cases. Here are the details.
New Cases
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
In this patent case, Amarin Pharma appeals a district court’s grant of Hikma’s motion to dismiss inducement claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In its opening brief, Amarin argues the “district court erred by: (1) weighing Amarin’s allegations separately and in isolation against the plausibility pleading standard rather than considering whether, as Amarin pled, Hikma’s conduct as a whole induced infringement; (2) making implicit factual findings on the key question of what Hikma’s conduct communicated to prescribing physicians; and (3) misapplying skinny-label precedent.” It further contends “[t]hose errors effectively and improperly elevated the pleading standard to deprive Amarin of its right to pursue a more than plausible claim for induced infringement.”
In its response brief, Hikma asserts “[p]recedent makes clear that, to state a claim for actively induced infringement, Amarin was required to plausibly allege Hikma took ‘active steps . . . taken to encourage direct infringement.'” It also argues the Federal Circuit “has previously rejected each of Amarin’s label-based inducement theories.” And, it maintains, “[a]llowing Amarin’s facially deficient inducement claims to proceed past the pleadings stage in this post-launch lawsuit would encourage meritless post-launch lawsuits in similar skinny label cases.”
This case attracted an amicus brief from the Association for Accessible Medicines in support of Hikma and affirmance.
US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission
In this patent case, US Synthetic Corp. appeals an International Trade Commission decision finding patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. In its opening brief, US Synthetic Corp. argues that, “[u]nder step one of Alice, the Commission creates an arbitrary structure/nonstructural distinction, improperly labeling measurements of [polycrystalline diamond compact or] PDC properties as ‘side effects’ and ‘desired results’ in a way that misunderstands the underlying technology.” It notes the “Final Determination also errs under Alice step two, failing to analyze each Asserted Claim in its ordered combination as directed by the Supreme Court, effectively collapsing the two-step Alice test into a one-step test.”
This case attracted an amicus brief from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in support of US Synthetic Corp. and reversal.
Opinions and Orders
Since our last update, in cases we have been following because they attracted amicus briefs, the Federal Circuit issued opinions in a Clean Water Act case and a pro se case. The court also released a summary affirmance in a patent case.
City of Wilmington v. United States
In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the City of Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323. The Federal Circuit found that, because “Wilmington’s stormwater management fees are not ‘reasonable service charges’ . . . , the [Clean Water Act] does not waive the [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’] sovereign immunity.” As a result of this analysis, the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims. See our opinion summary for more information.
Cooperman v. Social Security Administration
In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which found “good cause to remove Mr. Cooperman from his position as an administrative law judge at the Social Security Administration.” In a per curiam opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s judgment “[b]ecause the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and because the Board did not otherwise err in its analysis.” See our opinion summary for more information.
In re Cellect, LLC (Cellect I)
In this case, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board via a Rule 36 judgment.
New Briefing
Since our last update, there have been no new briefs filed in cases we are tracking.
Argument Recaps
Since our last update, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs.
Dimasi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal and oral argument. One of these attorneys along with an attorney representing the government participated in the oral argument. Here is our argument recap.
Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE
In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing tying and trade secret claims. Here is our argument recap.
In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect I”)
In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding patent claims unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting. Here is our argument recap. As noted above, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in this case via a Rule 36 judgment.
In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect II”)
In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Here is our argument recap.