FedCircuitBlog

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.

One case being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted an amicus brief. That case is FS.COM Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the ITC that Panduit Corp. and The Siemon Company infringed certain patents and The Siemon Company and FS.com Inc. infringed one patent. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Bard’s claims are directed to patent-ineligible printed matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, moreover, lack an inventive concept. With respect to the cross-appeal, the court will similarly consider whether MedComp’s claims are ineligible. This is our argument preview.

As we reported yesterday, three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc., a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Realtime’s patents are directed to an abstract idea and lack inventive concept and are thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Jazz must request the Food and Drug Administration remove (or “delist”) one of its patents from the FDA’s so-called Orange Book because that patent was improperly listed. This is our argument preview.

A second case being argued in January at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Apple Inc. v. Vidal. This case concerns an allegation that a district court erred in finding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. This is our argument preview.