FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. appeals a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. Judges Taranto, Chen, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral agreement in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc. We have been following this case because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded that Rebecca Curtin is not entitled to challenge United Trademark Holding’s application to register the mark RAPUNZEL under a test known as the “zone of interests” framework. Federal Circuit Judges Taranto and Hughes and the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, Mark Barnett, who sat by designation, heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Stupp Corp. v. United States, an international trade case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a decision of the Department of Commerce to use a particular test in a differential pricing analysis used to calculate antidumping margins. Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court is reviewing whether a district court erred in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses,” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and devoid of connection to the patent’s incremental improvement to the art.” This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States, a government contract case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal of a complaint seeking damages based on alleged government-caused delays in a contractor’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations. Judges Dyk, Clevenger, and Prost heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument Marmen Inc. v. United States, a trade case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final antidumping duty determination that assigned a dumping margin on Marmen, a Canadian wind tower producer. Judges Prost, Taranto, and Chen heard oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in HMTX Industries LLC v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, HMTX appeals a judgment by the Court of International Trade, which upheld the U.S. Trade Representative’s tariffs on Chinese goods. HMTX alleged USTR’s tariffs “on hundreds of billions of dollars of imported Chinese goods are ultra vires and procedurally infirm.” This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Dinh v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. That court held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Stoll, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.