FedCircuitBlog

On August 6 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Buffington v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Chief Judge Moore as well as Judges Lourie and O’Malley. These judges considered whether the Secretary of Veterans Affairs exceeded his statutory authority when he promulgating a regulation related to the timing of resumption of disability benefits payments following a period of active military service. Chief Judge Moore authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Judge O’Malley dissented. This is our opinion summary. 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing how the Patent Office “let’s women shine in court while Big Law sends men,”
• commentary on a Federal Circuit decision addressing the timeline limitations on interlocutory appeals,
• a blog post discussing a transition in the position of the Deputy Director of the USPTO, and
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit case that may determine an Appointments Clause challenge to the members of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a tax case appealed from the Court of International Trade and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On August 5 the Federal Circuit issued a new panel opinion in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted numerous amicus briefs. Chief Judge Moore and Judges Newman and Prost formed the panel hearing this case. The court’s new opinion was filed per curiam, with Judge Prost authoring a dissent. In the new opinion, the court again vacated a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law “because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of induced infringement.” Furthermore, as before, the panel reinstated the jury’s damages award “because the district court did not err in its jury instructions on damages.” But the new panel opinion is most notable because it addresses the arguments made in the amicus briefs supporting rehearing. Those amicus briefs argued that the panel’s original opinion “could be read to upset the careful balance struck with . . . carve-outs” in the context of Hatch-Waxman. Indeed, the case involved an alleged, so-called “skinny label,” a label that omits language indicating infringing use. In the panel’s new opinion, the majority maintained that its “narrow, case-specific review of substantial evidence does not upset the careful balance struck by the Hatch-Waxman Act regarding [such] carve-outs.” Here we provide the court’s description of the background of the case, a summary of the court’s analysis, and relevant parts of Judge Prost’s dissent. 

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

On August 2 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Linn, and Chen. Judge Linn authored the majority opinion affirming the district court, and Judge Newman dissented. The opinions relate to the doctrine of standing and the proper interpretation of the bylaws of the University of Michigan as they relate to ownership of intellectual property. This is our opinion summary. 

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights an article discussing a Federal Circuit decision upholding three patents concerning antibody treatment for migraines, another article highlighting a summary affirmance of a district court’s invalidation of a patent for ineligibility, an article about a Federal Circuit determination that the Patent Office cannot recoup expert witness fees in lawsuits filed in district court by unsuccessful patent applicants, and commentary on a recent ruling about the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act in the context of inter partes review proceedings.

On August 13, the Federal Circuit issued another order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus, this one in In re DISH Network L.L.C., another case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. While the court denied the petition, the court noted that “the district court here erred in relying on DISH’s general presence in Western Texas without tying that presence to the events underlying the suit.” As a result, the court stated it is “confident the district court will reconsider its determination in light of the appropriate legal standard and precedent on its own.” Also, notably, Judge Reyna wrote a concurring opinion in this case. Here is a summary of the case, the order, and the concurring opinion. 

On August 4, the Federal Circuit also issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Google LLC, another case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. As in In re Apple Inc., the court denied the petition. The court held that “Google has not made a clear and indisputable showing that transfer was required.” The court reasoned it was not “prepared on mandamus to disturb those factual findings” of the district court. Here is a summary of the case and the order.