FedCircuitBlog

Only one case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted an amicus brief. That case is Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, which concerns Article III’s constitutional standing requirement in the context patent ownership. Specifically, in this case the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s determination that Uniloc USA, Inc. did not hold all exclusionary rights to the asserted patent for purposes of satisfying Article III’s standing requirement. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing oral arguments in two cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc. On appeal, Personalized Media Communications challenges a district court’s decision to overturn a jury verdict based on the equitable doctrine of prosecution latches. Personalized Media argues the district court committed legal error and abused its discretion in ruling that Personalized Media engaged in an “egregious misuse” of the patent system. This is our argument preview.

We are previewing oral arguments scheduled for this month at the Federal Circuit in two cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Doyon v. United States, a case in which Doyon appeals a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims upholding a decision by the Board for the Correction of Naval Records to deny an application to correct discharge records. Three amicus briefs were filed by veterans organizations in support of Doyon. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales USA, Inc., a patent case in which Thales appeals a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to “prevent Philips from pursuing an . . . exclusion order against Thales.” Two amicus briefs were filed in support of Thales, one by the App Association and the other a joint brief by Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., U-Blox America, Inc., and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Memmer v. United States, a takings case in which Memmer appeals a decision by the Court of Federal Claims concerning a Notice of Interim Trail Use issued by the Surface Transportation Board. In the appeal, Memmer challenges the lower court’s analysis of causation as well as its decision that “the duration of the taking lasted as long as the railroad’s abandonment authority existed.” The United States cross-appeals to argue that the lower court “erred in holding that Indiana Southwestern would have abandoned if the NITU had not issued.” One amicus brief was filed in support of Memmer. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Thaler v. Vidal. Thaler is the developer, user, and owner of DABUS, an artificial intelligence system that created the two inventions at issue without the assistance of a human inventor. In this case, Thaler seeks review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, deciding that “an artificial intelligence machine cannot be an ‘inventor’ under the Patent Act.” This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Skaar v. McDonough, in which McDonough, the Director of Veterans Affairs, appeals a decision by the Court of Veterans Appeals certifying a class action of veterans. Skaar cross-appeals to argue the Court of Veterans Appeals misinterpreted equitable tolling and waiver standards to exclude from the certified class veterans who had not timely appealed past agency decisions. Amicus briefs in support of Skaar were filed by the National Veterans Legal Services Program and 15 Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, and Federal Courts Professors. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing three arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit. We are previewing these arguments because the underlying cases attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight LaBonte v. United States, a veterans case where LaBonte is challenging a “Court of Federal Claims decision that military correction boards established under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 may not grant disability retirement to service members whose ‘Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,’ a standard separation document known as a ‘DD-214’ form, contains reference to a court martial.” Two amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiff-appellant, LaBonte, one by Military Law Practitioners and another a joint brief by the National Veterans Legal Services Program and Protect Our Defenders. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing three arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit. We are previewing these arguments because the underlying cases attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., in which Cisco appeals a finding that it infringed four patents held by Centripetal Networks, resulting in a judgement of over $2.75 billion. An amicus brief was filed by High Tech Inventors Alliance in support of Cisco. This is our argument preview.

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in Taylor v. McDonough, a veterans case. The court will consider whether equitable estoppel may be used against the government with respect to establishing the effective date of an award pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5110. In particular, the court will consider several related questions: (1) whether “granting Mr. Taylor’s claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date under the doctrine of equitable estoppel be contrary to statutory appropriations and thus barred by the Appropriations Clause;” (2) if equitable estoppel does not apply, whether Taylor has a claim for “denial of a constitutional right of access to [Veterans Affairs] processes for securing disability benefits for which he met the eligibility criteria;” and (3) if a right of access exists, whether the right of access was violated here and what the remedy is. This is our argument preview.