FedCircuitBlog

As we previously reported, the Federal Circuit recently conducted a panel rehearing in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In this case, Teva petitioned the en banc court to reconsider the panel’s decision that Teva induced infringement through use of a skinny label on its generic version of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) drug Coreg. Teva pointed to Hatch-Waxman and asserted that Congress provided a statutory “carve-out” mechanism allowing a generic to adopt a skinny label for unpatented uses that cannot be blocked by a patent on one method of using the drug. The panel treated the motion as requesting panel rehearing and granted panel rehearing. This is our recap of the rehearing oral argument.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in government contract cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgements.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. New petitions were filed in two patent cases raising questions related to claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents. The court also denied seven petitions in patent cases raising questions related to Rule 36 judgments, injunctive relief, claim construction, awards of attorneys’ fees, eligible subject matter, deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, standing, inter partes review, and enablement. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, reversing a district court’s judgment on indefiniteness. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. The introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments can be found here.

As we have been reporting, the Federal Circuit this month is hearing oral arguments in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In a tax case, National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Circuit heard argument Monday related to a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade that regulations promulgated by the Department of Treasury to curtail “double drawback” (two tax refunds for the same exported merchandise) are invalid. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued precedential opinions in two patent cases, the first addressing infringement, enablement, damages, and willfulness, and the second addressing sanctions. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case, this opinion addressing motions to exclude expert testimony. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that an updated edition of the court’s rules are available on the court’s website. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a much-anticipated patent case, United States v. Arthrex, Inc. The first issue for consideration by the Court is whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are principal or inferior officers. The second issue is, if administrative patent judges are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. This is our argument preview.

Next week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. As in the past several months, the court will hear most of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Notably, however, as discussed in our recent post, “Panels B, E, H, K, and N will only be available through the online audio stream” on the Federal Circuit’s new YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene 17 panels to consider about 65 cases. Of these 65 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 43. Of the argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: one in a tax case, one in a patent case, and one in a death benefit case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.