This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene nine panels to consider 46 cases. Of these 46 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 34. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.
Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second case is New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. LNW Gaming, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review two judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method review proceedings. New Vision contends the overall structure for instituting and funding post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act “creates impermissible incentives for the PTAB, its leadership, and the individual administrative patent judges.” These incentives, New Vision argues, violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. New Vision also argues the “petitions should have been denied pursuant to the contractual obligation that all disputes over the [relevant] agreement are to be resolved in a Nevada court.” This is our argument preview.
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed related to the same pro se case. Additionally, three briefs in opposition were filed in two patent cases. Here are the details.
Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the District of Delaware ruling on patent infringement and invalidity claims. The district court held that, if approved, Norwich’s Abbreviated New Drug Application would induce infringement of certain Salix patent claims (the “HE,” “IBS-D,” and “Polymorph” claims). Additionally, the court held that, while Salix’s HE claims are nonobvious and therefore not invalid, the asserted Polymorph and IBS-D claims are invalid as obvious. Both parties appealed the district court’s judgment. This is our argument preview.
This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a denial of a preliminary injunction in a patent dispute. The other precedential opinion addresses a dispute over whether a certain fuel mixture may qualify as “alternative fuel” for tax credit purposes. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Here is an 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 new briefing in a patent case and recent oral arguments in a trademark case, a veterans case, and a takings case. Here are the details.
Happy New Year! The Federal Circuit kicked off 2024 with the release of one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion addresses issues of standing and failure to state a claim in a government contract matter. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal in a patent case in which a district court granted summary judgment of invalidity. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in City of Fresno v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment related to breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims. The plaintiffs argue on appeal that the trial court erred both in concluding that the contractual water rights in question were subordinate to the rights of others during a drought and by dismissing takings claims for lack of standing. Judges Moore, Clevenger, and Stark heard the argument. This is our argument recap.