Comprehensive coverage of activities and news regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
As we have been noting all week, five cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The fifth of those case is Micron Technology Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC, a patent case. In it, Longhorn IP and Katana Silicon Technologies appeal from a district court’s imposition of bonds they say effectively preclude them from prosecuting claims for patent infringement. This is our argument preview.
As we have been reporting, five cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a trademark case. In it, Crocs appeals a denial of a general exclusion order by the International Trade Commission. This is our argument preview.
As we have been reporting, five cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. As we reported yesterday, two of these cases will be argued together, and both are styled In re United States. In the second case, the International Trade Commission petitions the Federal Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Court of International Trade to retain the Commission’s designation of certain information as business proprietary information and to vacate a related opinion and order. This is our argument preview.
Five cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. Two of these cases will be argued together, and both are styled In re United States. In the first case, the United States on behalf of the International Trade Commission appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade. The United States argues the CIT abused its discretion in denying a joint motion to redact business proprietary information submitted to the Commission under a promise of confidentiality. This is our argument preview.
Five cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case. In this case, Arendi appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. This is our argument preview.
As we have been reporting this week, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., a patent case. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. appeal numerous rulings by a district court, including rulings concerning patent eligibility, definiteness, and anticipation. This is our argument preview.
As we have been reporting, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc. In this patent case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation challenges the district court’s denial of its motion to intervene and unseal judicial records. This is our argument preview.
As we reported yesterday, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in October attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. In this patent case, REGENXBIO Inc. and the Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania appeal a district court’s grant of summary judgment of ineligibility. This is our argument preview.
Four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in October attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc. In this patent case, Paul and David Arlton seek reversal of a district court’s summary judgment ruling “that Plaintiffs’ claim for patent infringement is barred by [28 U.S.C.] § 1498,” as well as reversal of a denial of their motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. This is our argument preview.
Only one case scheduled for oral argument in September attracted an amicus brief. That case is an employment law case, Lesko v United States. It raises questions concerning how “officially ordered or approved” in 5 U.S.C. § 5542(a) should be interpreted after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and ultimately whether the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to adopt a requirement that any overtime pay be authorized in writing. After a panel of the court heard oral argument, the court voted sua sponte for en banc consideration. This is our argument preview.
