This past Wednesday the court heard oral argument in Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. United States, Cacciapalle v. United States, Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, and Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, cases that attracted amicus briefs. In these cases, the plaintiffs asserted claims at the Court of Federal Claims based on government actions related to the 2008 financial crisis and ownership of shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As explained by the Court of Federal Claims in one of the cases, the “plaintiffs seek the return of money illegally exacted, damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and compensation for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The Court of Federal Claims, however, dismissed these claims, finding it “lacks jurisdiction to entertain their fiduciary duty and implied-in-fact-contract claims, and plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any of their claims.” The plaintiffs have now appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower court’s holdings. The Federal Circuit consolidated these cases for purposes of oral argument. Judges Lourie, Prost, and O’Malley heard Wednesday’s argument. This is our argument recap.
On April 21, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. As we highlighted in our argument preview, the question presented to the Court was “whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.” In other words, the parties argued for and against the doctrine of assignor estoppel. This is our argument recap.
This past Monday the court heard oral argument in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, Mobility Workx presents several arguments that inter partes review violates the Constitution. In particular, Mobility Workx argues that inter partes review violates its right to due process and qualifies as a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Judges Newman, Schall, and Dyk heard Monday’s argument. This is our argument recap.
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Buffington v. McDonough, a case presenting the question of whether the Secretary of Veterans Affairs exceeded his statutory authority when promulgating a regulation related to the timing of resumption of disability benefits payments following a period of active military service. Judges Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley heard the argument. This is our argument recap.
As we have been reporting, two panels of the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments last week in cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., the court is reviewing two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method reviews and, in particular, arguments that structural bias within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in favor of challenges to patents amounts to a due process violation. Judges Moore, Taranto, and Newman heard the arguments. This is our argument recap.
Last week panels of the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in two cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one, Lynch v. McDonough, Lynch asks the court to overrule Ortiz v. Principi, a case setting forth the burden of proof by which veterans must prove their claims. Chief Judge Prost and Circuit Judges Dyk and Clevenger heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.
As we have been reporting, the Federal Circuit this month scheduled three oral arguments in cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the court heard argument Thursday regarding two different district courts’ holdings with respect to an alleged standing problem related to the plaintiff, Omni Medsci. This is our argument recap.
As we previously reported, the Federal Circuit recently conducted a panel rehearing in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In this case, Teva petitioned the en banc court to reconsider the panel’s decision that Teva induced infringement through use of a skinny label on its generic version of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) drug Coreg. Teva pointed to Hatch-Waxman and asserted that Congress provided a statutory “carve-out” mechanism allowing a generic to adopt a skinny label for unpatented uses that cannot be blocked by a patent on one method of using the drug. The panel treated the motion as requesting panel rehearing and granted panel rehearing. This is our recap of the rehearing oral argument.
On Monday, March 1, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the closely-watched patent case, United States v. Arthrex. As we previewed a couple days prior to argument, two main issues were considered by the Court. First, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, whether administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are principal or inferior officers. And second, if APJs are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. Here are the details.
As we have been reporting, the Federal Circuit this month is hearing oral arguments in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In a tax case, National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Circuit heard argument Monday related to a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade that regulations promulgated by the Department of Treasury to curtail “double drawback” (two tax refunds for the same exported merchandise) are invalid. This is our argument recap.