FedCircuitBlog

As we reported yesterday, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Gorge Design Group LLC v. Xuansheng, a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Gorge’s claims against NeoMagic were not frivolous and NeoMagic was not entitled to attorneys’ fees. This is our argument preview.

Five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, a trade case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of International Trade that the “President’s authority to modify a safeguard measure under 19 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B) is limited solely to ‘trade-liberalizing’ modifications, and that Proclamation 10101 thus went beyond the President’s statutory authority.” This is our argument preview.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a case addressing patent law’s enablement requirement. The Supreme Court granted review to consider the following question: “Whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” This is our argument preview.

One case being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted an amicus brief. That case is FS.COM Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the ITC that Panduit Corp. and The Siemon Company infringed certain patents and The Siemon Company and FS.com Inc. infringed one patent. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Bard’s claims are directed to patent-ineligible printed matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, moreover, lack an inventive concept. With respect to the cross-appeal, the court will similarly consider whether MedComp’s claims are ineligible. This is our argument preview.

As we reported yesterday, three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc., a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Realtime’s patents are directed to an abstract idea and lack inventive concept and are thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Jazz must request the Food and Drug Administration remove (or “delist”) one of its patents from the FDA’s so-called Orange Book because that patent was improperly listed. This is our argument preview.

A second case being argued in January at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Apple Inc. v. Vidal. This case concerns an allegation that a district court erred in finding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus brief. One of those cases is PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, a trade case. In it, PrimeSource Building Products claims the President did not act within his statutory authority by extending national security tariffs he had previously applied to steel articles to include derivatives of those articles. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of International Trade that the President exceeded his authority by issuing Proclamation 9980 outside the time limitations contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1). This is our argument preview.

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in Adams v. United States, a federal benefits case. The arguments will address whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitles federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. This is our argument preview.