FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, Arendi appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. Judges Dyk, Linn, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Court heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP, LLC, raises questions relating to Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act. Katana, the patent owner, sued Micron for infringement in federal district court. Longhorn, its licensing affiliate, was then sued by Micron in Idaho state court under the Act. Longhorn and Katana now appeal the district court’s order requiring an $8 million bond as a precondition to Katana pursuing its patent infringement claims. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument in Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a trademark case we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Crocs appeals the International Trade Commission’s denial of a general exclusion order. This is our argument recap. 

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes President Trump to impose tariffs for national emergencies. The Court also granted review to consider, even if IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the Act unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the President. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in two consolidated cases styled In re United States. In the first case, the United States, on behalf of the International Trade Commission, appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade, arguing it abused its discretion in denying the parties’ joint motion to redact information submitted to the Commission. In the second case, the International Trade Commission petitions the Federal Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Court of International Trade to retain the Commission’s designation of information as business proprietary information. Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Chen heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In the case, Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., a panel consisting of Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Chen heard the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s challenge to a district court’s denial of its motion to intervene and unseal judicial records. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In the case, C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., C.R. Bard challenges rulings concerning patent eligibility, definiteness, and anticipation, among other issues. Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., raises questions relating to eligibility of a genetically engineered cultured host cell that contains nucleic acid sequences from at least two different organisms spliced together into a single molecule. This case asks whether a district court erred in holding patent claims ineligible because the inventors merely “combined natural products and put them in a host cell.” Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., raises several questions, most prominently questions concerning patent infringement and the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Judges Prost, Cunningham, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Lesko v. United States, a federal employment law case. The case raises questions ultimately asking whether the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to adopt a requirement that any overtime pay be authorized in writing. This is our argument recap.