FedCircuitBlog

Four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect Inc. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a judge in the District of Delaware that an out-of-state non-party was in contempt of court for disregarding an order requiring her to testify at a hearing. This is our argument preview.

On Monday, March 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Court will review the Federal Circuit’s resolution of an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In particular, the Supreme Court will consider whether the statutory deadline to file an appeal from the MSPB is jurisdictional. The statutory provision in question is 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). This is our argument preview.

As we’ve been reporting, five cases being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Ireland v. United States. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a decision by the Western District of Texas to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in an unemployment benefits case under the Little Tucker Act. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, five cases being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Lemon Bay Cove LLC v. United States. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which held that the denial of a wetland permit by the United States Army Corps of Engineers was not a categorical taking or regulatory taking of Lemon Bay’s land. This is our argument preview.

As we reported yesterday, five cases being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Frantzis v. McDonough. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of Veteran Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a Board hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. This is our argument preview.

Five cases being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Celanese International Corporation v. International Trade Commission. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the International Trade Commission that, under the post-America Invents Act on-sale bar provision, the sale of products made by a secret process invalidates a subsequently-filed patent application on that process. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal because the appellant failed to prove he was an “employee” within the meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case being heard en banc. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and, in the process, determine whether to adopt a more flexible test for analyzing design patent obviousness compared to the existing “Rosen-Durling” test. This is our argument preview.

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.

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.