FedCircuitBlog

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. With respect to these cases, since our last update we highlight five new opinions, four in patent cases and one in a government contract case; two new argument recaps, one in a trademark case and one in a trade case; and three new cases, one a design patent case and two utility patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.  

Only one case being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted an amicus brief. The case is Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., a patent case. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals appeals a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, each dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a veterans case, and the other comes in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.  

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral agreement in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc. We have been following this case because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded that Rebecca Curtin is not entitled to challenge United Trademark Holding’s application to register the mark RAPUNZEL under a test known as the “zone of interests” framework. Federal Circuit Judges Taranto and Hughes and the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, Mark Barnett, who sat by designation, heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

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

• a report discussing how the neurosurgeon who testified that Judge Newman is “fit to serve . . . responded to a barrage of criticisms aimed at his analysis”;
• an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently reviewed a decision of the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent and Trademark Office for the first time;
• a piece reporting how the Supreme Court recently denied “several high-profile IP petitions, including two that touch on the [Federal Circuit]’s controversial use of one-word affirmances under Rule 36”; and
• an article recounting how “[a]dministrative judges with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should prepare themselves for layoffs, according to an email from Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick.”

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Stupp Corp. v. United States, an international trade case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a decision of the Department of Commerce to use a particular test in a differential pricing analysis used to calculate antidumping margins. Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential orders, one dismisses a petition for a writ of mandamus and the other grants and denies several motions. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders other than the dismissal as well as a link to the dismissal.

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. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case and a pro se case. The Court also received waivers of the right to respond in five pro se cases; briefs in opposition in two patent cases; a supplemental brief in a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two new amicus briefs in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and two cases addressing Rule 36. Here are the details.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. The issue on appeal in this case was whether patent term extension for a reissued patent “should be calculated based on the issue date of the original patent or the reissued patent.” The Federal Circuit reviewed a district court determination that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office correctly calculated a reissued patent term extension based on the patent’s original issue date. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Mayer and Reyna, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s determination. This is our opinion summary.