FedCircuitBlog

One case being argued at the Federal Circuit in January attracted amicus briefs. That case is Apple Inc. v. Squires. In it, Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Google LLC, and Intel Corp. appeal a district court’s determination that the adoption of a precedential framework by the Patent and Trademark Office to govern whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will institute inter partes review when parallel district court litigation exists did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. This is our argument preview.

As we’ve been reporting, three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in December attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases, Hamill v. Collins, is a veterans case. In it, Hamill appeals a dismissal by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims of his mandamus petition. He urged that court to order the Department of Veterans Affairs to issue an appealable decision readjudicating the character of his discharge, and to certify a class of veterans who received other than honorable discharges and then applied for benefits but received decisions that adjudicated only healthcare eligibility, not including readjudication of the character of their discharges. The lower court dismissed his petition as moot because Hamill received a determination from VA that he had not submitted new and material evidence related to the character of his discharge. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in December attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Mid Contintent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, a trade case. In it, PT Enterprise Inc. and related Taiwanese nail producers appeal a decision of the Court of International Trade, which sustained findings of the Department of Commerce. In particular, PT Enterprise asks the Federal Circuit to determine whether the Department of Commerce’s differential pricing methodology, which determines whether there is a significant difference between pricing patterns, is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in December attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., a patent case. In it, LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc. appeal a district court’s grant of summary judgment of eligibility and its order denying judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and no damages.

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections. In this case, which was consolidated with another case decided by the D.C. Circuit, President Trump is appealing the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act’s grant of presidential authority to “regulate” imports does not authorize the tariffs he imposed. This is our argument preview.

As we have been noting all week, five cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The fifth of those case is Micron Technology Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC, a patent case. In it, Longhorn IP and Katana Silicon Technologies appeal from a district court’s imposition of bonds they say effectively preclude them from prosecuting claims for patent infringement. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, five cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a trademark case. In it, Crocs appeals a denial of a general exclusion order by the International Trade Commission. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, five cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. As we reported yesterday, two of these cases will be argued together, and both are styled In re United States. In the second case, the International Trade Commission petitions the Federal Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Court of International Trade to retain the Commission’s designation of certain information as business proprietary information and to vacate a related opinion and order. This is our argument preview.

Five cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. Two of these cases will be argued together, and both are styled In re United States. In the first case, the United States on behalf of the International Trade Commission appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade. The United States argues the CIT abused its discretion in denying a joint motion to redact business proprietary information submitted to the Commission under a promise of confidentiality. This is our argument preview.

Five cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case. In this case, Arendi appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. This is our argument preview.