FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions today in light of the federal holiday of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Every month here at Fed Circuit Blog we highlight recent scholarship related to the Federal Circuit and the law under its jurisdiction. This jurisdiction, of course, includes patent law, but also many other areas of law. This month we highlight three articles, two in the field of patent law and one in the field of takings law. The patent law articles address, respectively, the role of the United States Solicitor General vis-à-vis the Patent Office in formulating patent policy, and whether intellectual property licenses act as a “tax” that limits access to technology assets. The takings law article takes a fresh look at the law governing alleged physical takings.

Today the Federal Circuit issued, but did not publish on its website, two important nonprecedential orders in patent and trademark cases. These orders represent the continuing fall out from the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that the Secretary of Commerce’s appointment of Administrative Patent Judges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Hat tip to Sharon Israel at Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. for alerting us about these orders.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In the last of these three cases, American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, the American Institute for International Steel (and its co-appellants) presented two questions to the Federal Circuit related to the Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. As we noted in our argument preview, these questions ask whether Congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative authority to the President. Last Friday, the parties presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Taranto, Stoll, and Schall. Here is our recap of those arguments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in Merit Systems Protection Board cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report includes highlights of amicus briefs filed in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., a report on oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., and a comment on the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in five petitions related to patent eligibility.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the Court is considering whether, to recover a trademark infringer’s profit, a trademark owner must prove that the infringer infringed willfully. Here is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a case involving a claim for death benefits under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for merits cases, highlights include an oral argument and a slew of amicus briefs, respectively, in two cases. As for petitions, only one new petition was filed, and just a handful of response and reply briefs were filed. The Supreme Court, however, denied petitions in a large number of cases, including most notably in Athena, Hikma, and HP, as we previously discussed. Here are the details.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these three cases, Sanford Health Plan v. United States, the United States presented two questions to the Federal Circuit related to the Affordable Care Act. As we noted in our argument preview, these questions ask whether health insurance companies may recover cost-sharing payments identified in the ACA but never funded by Congress. Last Thursday, the United States, Sanford Health Plan, and third party Community Health Plan (whose case was consolidated with Sanford for the oral argument) presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Taranto. This is our recap of those arguments.