FedCircuitBlog

Five cases being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Celanese International Corporation v. International Trade Commission. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the International Trade Commission that, under the post-America Invents Act on-sale bar provision, the sale of products made by a secret process invalidates a subsequently-filed patent application on that process. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal because the appellant failed to prove he was an “employee” within the meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case being heard en banc. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and, in the process, determine whether to adopt a more flexible test for analyzing design patent obviousness compared to the existing “Rosen-Durling” test. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second case is New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. LNW Gaming, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review two judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method review proceedings. New Vision contends the overall structure for instituting and funding post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act “creates impermissible incentives for the PTAB, its leadership, and the individual administrative patent judges.” These incentives, New Vision argues, violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. New Vision also argues the “petitions should have been denied pursuant to the contractual obligation that all disputes over the [relevant] agreement are to be resolved in a Nevada court.” This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the District of Delaware ruling on patent infringement and invalidity claims. The district court held that, if approved, Norwich’s Abbreviated New Drug Application would induce infringement of certain Salix patent claims (the “HE,” “IBS-D,” and “Polymorph” claims). Additionally, the court held that, while Salix’s HE claims are nonobvious and therefore not invalid, the asserted Polymorph and IBS-D claims are invalid as obvious. Both parties appealed the district court’s judgment. This is our argument preview. 

As we have been reporting this week, three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is City of Fresno v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment related to breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims. The plaintiffs argue on appeal that the trial court erred both in concluding that the contractual water rights in question were subordinate to the rights of others during a drought and by dismissing takings claims for lack of standing. This is our argument preview.

As we mentioned yesterday, three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is In re Chestek PLLC. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejecting Chestek’s trademark application. The Board based on its judgment on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Beaudette v. McDonough, a veterans case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to hear appeals of adverse decisions pertaining to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. This is our argument preview.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” This is our argument preview.

On Wednesday, November 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. The Court granted review to consider whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [of the Lanham Act] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” This is our argument preview.