FedCircuitBlog

Next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in an en banc patent case, EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court will consider whether a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses resulted in an artificially inflated damages award. This is our argument preview.

As we highlighted on Monday, three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc. In it, Rebecca Curtin appeals a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded that she is not entitled to oppose UTH’s application to register the mark RAPUNZEL under a test known as the zone of interests framework. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Stupp Corporation v. United States. In it, Stupp Corporation appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained the Department of Commerce’s finding upholding the application of a particular test in the differential pricing analysis to calculate antidumping margins. This is our argument preview.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Farrington v. Department of Transportation, an employment law case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. There, the Board determined that Farrington was not subject to whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Judges Lourie, Mayer, and Prost heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

As we’ve been mentioning, next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. On Wednesday, a panel will consider Farrington v. Department of Transportation, a case that attracted one amicus brief. In this case, Farrington challenges the Merit Systems Protection Board’s determination that she was not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. This is our argument preview.

As we highlighted yesterday, three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States, a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a dismissal of a complaint seeking damages based on alleged government-caused delays in a contractor’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, four cases scheduled for oral argument at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Marmen Inc. v. United States. In this case, Marmen appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final antidumping duty determination that assigned a dumping margin on Marmen, a Canadian wind tower producer. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, four cases scheduled to be argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is HMTX Industries LLC v. United States. In this case, HMTX challenges the Court of International Trade’s decision to uphold a proposed increase in tariffs on goods originating in China. This is our argument preview.

As we highlighted yesterday, four cases scheduled to be argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is United Water Conservation District v. United States. In this case, United Water Conservation District appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed its takings claim. The court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. This is our argument preview.