This month the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in two related cases that attracted amicus briefs, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Alkem Laboratories Limited. In these cases, the court confronted breach of contract and patent infringement claims against two different alleged infringers–Mylan and Alkem. As we noted in our argument preview, Takeda argues that Section 1.2(d) of license agreements with the accused infringers does not allow for the production of generic versions of Takeda’s patented product at this time. Mylan and Alkem, along with the district court, disagree. The Federal Circuit consolidated the cases for argument purposes only, and the parties presented their arguments to a panel including Chief Judge Prost and Judges Newman and Hughes. This is our argument recap.
May the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reject a motion to amend a patent in an inter partes review because the Board concludes that a proposed substitute claim does not comply with the eligibility requirement? The Federal Circuit considered that question during an oral argument last week in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC. As discussed in our argument preview, the case attracted an amicus brief in favor of the Board’s position that it may consider eligibility in this context. Here is our argument recap.
Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Hardy v. United States. Hardy v. United States is a takings case on appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. The case concerns whether several deeds at issue granted an interest in fee simple or an easement in the disputed parcels of land.
Here is a review of the case and issues on appeal.
Last week three argued cases attracted amicus briefs. One was a veterans case, Sellers v. Wilkie. In it, the Federal Circuit considered “[w]hether a claimant’s general statement requesting benefits on a formal claim form that identifies specific disabilities constitutes a claim for all ‘reasonably identifiable’ diagnoses within the claimant’s records.” The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. and the National Veterans Legal Services Program filed an amicus brief supporting the claimant. Here is our argument recap.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard only one case that attracted an amicus brief. In the case, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., the court confronted several patent-law-related questions. As we noted in our argument preview, these questions related to literal infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, claim construction, damages, and injunctive relief. The amicus brief, however, focused only on the appropriateness of injunctive relief. On Friday, the parties presented their arguments to a panel that included Judges Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. This is our argument recap.
Our final argument recap this month comes in Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the court confronts invalidity and infringement arguments related to IFN-β-related polypeptides, which can be used to treat multiple sclerosis. Last Friday, the parties (Plaintiff-Appellee Biogen MA, Inc. and Defendants-Appellants EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer Inc.) presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Newman, Linn, and Hughes.
As we have reported in earlier posts this week, the Federal Circuit last week heard four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the court addressed the issue of obviousness-type double patenting, which is an equitable doctrine aimed at preventing patent owners from extending patent protection beyond the statutorily-afforded term. As we noted in our argument preview, one of the main issues presented to the court concerning this doctrine in this case was whether Immunex owns “all substantial rights in [the patents-in-suit], including the ability to control patent prosecution.” Last week the parties presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Here is our argument recap.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Caquelin v. United States, the court considered a takings claim. As we noted in our argument preview, one of the two issues presented to the court was whether a notice of interim trail use (NITU) “amounted to a government-authorized physical occupation of the underlying property for purposes of [a] takings analysis.” Last Thursday, the parties presented their arguments to a panel that included Judges Prost, Linn, and Taranto. This is our argument recap.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In the first of these cases, Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., the court addressed patent eligibility. As we noted in our argument preview, the central issue related to whether a patent claiming a method and process for “automatically routing telephone calls and other communications in a multinetwork environment using a physical controller” covers mere abstract ideas not eligible for patenting. On Tuesday, March 3, the parties presented their arguments to a panel including Judges Newman, Lourie, and O’Malley. This is our argument recap.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard one case that attracted amicus briefs, National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the court considered whether language added by the E-Government Act requires “a reduction in PACER fees” (the plaintiffs’ position), locks “in the status quo” in terms of fees (the district court’s holding), or authorizes an “expansion in fees” (the government’s position). Last Monday, the plaintiffs-appellants (National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center, and Alliance for Justice) and the defendant-appellee United States presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Lourie, Clevenger, and Hughes. This is our argument recap.