FedCircuitBlog

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.

The only case being argued next week that attracted an amicus brief is Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc. The appellant in this case, 10X Genomics,Inc., presented five issues for the court to review, covering aspects of literal infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, claim construction, damages, and injunctive relief. The amicus brief, however, focused only on the issue of injunctive relief. This case will be argued at the Federal Circuit on Friday, April 10. This is our argument preview.

The fourth case scheduled to be argued next week that attracting an amicus brief is Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc. A patent case, it drew interest from Samsung Bioepis and the Association for Accessible Medicines, respectively, concerning the issues of obviousness and double patenting. Both amici argue for reversal of the lower court decision in favor of the appellants, Sandoz Inc., Sandoz International GMBH, and Sandoz GMBH. Here is our argument preview.

Another case that will be argued next week is Caquelin v. United States, which attracted three amicus briefs. The Federal Circuit will be asked to address two questions related to takings law. First, the court will consider whether the Court of Federal Claims erred in holding that a notice of interim trail use (“NITU”) “amounted to a government-authorized physical occupation of the underlying property for purposes of [a] takings analysis.” Second, the court will consider whether the Court of Federal Claims erred in finding a taking under the “multifactor analysis of Arkansas Game [and Fish Comm’n v. United States].” Here is our preview of the arguments that will be presented to the court.

Next week is argument week at the Federal Circuit, and four cases slated to be argued attracted amicus briefs. A patent case, Biogen MA v. EMD Serono, Inc., drew interest from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals on the issue of invalidity of a patent “for the use of recombinant IFN-β ‘polypeptides’ to treat various diseases.” Here is our argument preview.

One of the four cases being argued next week that attracted an amicus brief is Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., which focuses on patent eligibility. Specifically, this case raises the question of whether a patent claiming a method for “automatically routing telephone calls and other communications in a multinetwork environment using a physical controller” covers abstract ideas not eligible for patenting. This is our argument preview.

Only one case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted any amicus brief. That said, the case, National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States, attracted five amicus briefs filed by 51 parties. In a nutshell, the case focuses on the legality of user fees charged by the federal judiciary for access to records via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. Here is our argument preview.

To recover a trademark infringer’s profit, must a trademark owner prove that the infringer acted willfully? On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., a case in which the Federal Circuit held that willfulness is a prerequisite to disgorgement of profits in trademark cases. Here is our argument preview.

Our third and final argument preview for January’s cases covers American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, a case that attracted two amicus briefs on each side. In March, 2018, President Trump relied upon Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1862, to impose a 25% tariff on imported steel products. In this case, a panel of the Federal Circuit will address a challenge by importers and users of imported steel products that Section 232 is facially unconstitutional. The appellants, in particular, argue that Section 232 constitutes an improper delegation of legislative authority and violates the principles of separation of powers established by the Constitution. This case will be argued at the Federal Circuit tomorrow morning.

Tomorrow the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in Sanford Health Plan v. United States, a case presenting the question of whether health insurance companies may recover cost-sharing payments identified in the Affordable Care Act but never funded by Congress. Here is our argument preview.