FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Federal Circuit. In this case, the Supreme Court is considering whether “a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.” This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted seven amicus briefs. In it, Teva challenges a district court’s injunction requiring it to delist five patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. Judges Prost, Taranto, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Restem appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which resulted in challenged claims being found not unpatentable. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the government. Judges Lourie, Stoll, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents were not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Hughes heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case. In it, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1),” which directs that court to “take due account” of the application of that rule. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case that attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which found all challenged patent claims unpatentable. The argument focused on the fourth issue presented, “whether the Board erred in determining that . . . a published and later abandoned U.S. patent application . . . can be applied in an IPR as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).” That statutory subsection says that “a petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent . . . only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” What the appellant and one amicus brief argue is that a patent application that never issues as a patent is not a patent nor does it qualify as a printed publication when its publication date is after the effective filing date of the patent subject to the inter partes review proceeding. Judge Lourie, Prost, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s order denying an anti-suit injunction. Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in AliveCor, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted seven amicus briefs. In this case the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the International Trade Commission in a patent infringement dispute between AliveCor, Inc. and Apple Inc. Judges Hughes, Linn, and Stark heard the argument. This is our argument recap.