Next week, in an en banc session of the court, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In this case, the court will consider two issues relates to veterans law: (1) whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review a generally applicable interpretive rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs through its Adjudication Procedures Manual, and (2) whether a Federal Circuit Rule impermissibly supersedes a statute of limitations. This is our argument preview.
Two cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC. In this case, Trimble, the plaintiff-appellant, asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action based on a lack of personal jurisdiction over a patent owner. This is our argument preview.
Another case that attracted an amicus brief and is being argued this month at the Federal Circuit is Albright v. United States, a consolidated takings case. In it, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. As explained by the government, however, the Court of Federal Claims “determined that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” One of the property owners explains that the issue on appeal is “[w]hether the CFC correctly applied the law of the state of Oregon to determine whether certain conveyances from the early 1900s to a railroad conveyed the fee estate in the land or a perpetual easement for railroad purposes.” This is our argument preview.
Next week is argument week at the Federal Circuit, and two cases slated to be argued attracted amicus briefs. A patent case, Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, drew interest from both the Aimed Alliance and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) on the issue of non-obviousness. In this case, Amarin, a patent owner, asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s judgment of obviousness based on alleged erroneous use of hindsight. This is our argument preview.
Only one case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted any amicus briefs, Conversant Wireless Licensing v. Apple Inc. This case previously came to the Federal Circuit in 2018 when the court determined that Apple infringed a patent asserted by Conversant. The court, however, remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the patent was unenforceable. On remand, the district court found that the patent was unenforceable, and Conversant now appeals that judgment. This is our argument preview.
Only one case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted an amicus brief, Amgen Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. In this case, Amgen, a patent owner, asks the Federal Circuit to force a district court to vacate its judgment of non-infringement in favor of a consent judgment of infringement. This is our argument preview.
Two cases that attracted amicus briefs are being argued on Monday, June 8. The cases are related. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A brought separate breach of contract and patent infringement claims against two different alleged infringers, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Alkem Laboratories Limited. In both cases, Takeda appeals the district court’s denial of its motions for preliminary injunctions. Takeda argues that license agreements between Takeda and the accused infringers do not allow for the production of generic versions of Takeda’s patented product at this time. Here is our argument preview.
The third case being argued this month that attracted an amicus brief is a patent case, Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC. This case is an appeal from an invalidation of patent claims in an inter partes review proceeding. In it, Uniloc argues the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “erred in denying, based only on a § 101 patent eligibility challenge, Uniloc’s motion to amend the patent.” In particular, Uniloc’s position is that § 101 challenges are not permissible in IPRs, even with respect to proposed new claims. This is our argument preview.
Another case being argued this month at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief is Sellers v. Wilkie. In this case, the government appeals the grant of benefits to a veteran. The government alleges that this case presents the question of “[w]hether a claimant’s general statement requesting benefits on a formal claim form that identifies specific disabilities constitutes a claim for all ‘reasonably identifiable’ diagnoses within the claimant’s records.” This is our argument preview.
Next week, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in Hardy v. the United States. Hardy v. United States is a takings case on appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. The heart of the dispute concerns whether several deeds at issue granted an interest in fee simple or an easement in the disputed parcels of land. This case attracted one amicus brief discussed further below. Two issues will be presented for the court’s review. Here is a preview of the case and issues on appeal.