FedCircuitBlog

As we previously mentioned, four cases being argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs, and two of those cases are appeals from ex parte reexaminations involving the same appellant, Cellect, LLC. In In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect II”), the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. This is our argument preview.

As we previously mentioned, four cases being argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. Two of those cases are appeals from ex parte reexaminations involving the same appellant, Cellect, LLC. In In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect I”), the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding patent claims unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting. This is our argument preview.

As we mentioned yesterday, four cases being argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing tying and trade secret claims. This is our argument preview.

Four cases being argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is DiMasi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a pro se vaccine case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal. Moreover, despite the fact that the petitioner is representing herself, the Federal Circuit has set the case for an oral argument. This is our argument preview.

Again, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jenkins v. United States, a takings case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Jenkins was not entitled to compensation for the loss of his vehicles seized during a criminal investigation. This is our argument preview.

One of the five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief is Dixon v. United States, a tax case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss Dixon’s “assessed additional income tax claim” for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and in the alternative for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is City of WIlmington, Delaware v. United States, a contract case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323. This is our argument preview.

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.