Last week, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In this case, the court considered two questions posed by NOVA in its petition: (1) whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review a generally applicable interpretive rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs through its Adjudication Procedures Manual, and (2) whether a Federal Circuit Rule impermissibly supersedes a statute of limitations. Additionally, as a preliminary matter, the court heard argument as to whether NOVA has Article III standing in this case. This is our argument recap.
Earlier this week, on October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the long-running software copyright case. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this extended oral argument took place over the phone and lasted for over 90 minutes. The Court worked to great lengths to untangle the attorneys’ many vital arguments that have developed over the past decade. As we previewed the day before the argument, the issues, in this case, are the availability of copyright protection for software interfaces, in particular Oracle’s Java SE declarations, and Google’s copying of such code that it contends is fair use.
Yesterday the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Trimble, the plaintiff-appellant, asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s dismissal of its declaratory judgment action. Trimble argues that the district court wrongly determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant-patent owner, PerDiemCo. This is our argument recap.
Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. Amarin asked the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s judgment of obviousness based on alleged erroneous use of hindsight reasoning. Amarin alleged in its briefs that the district court “fell victim to hindsight” by not “apply[ing] each of the Graham factors, including the common sense objective indicia, before declaring an invention obvious.” Notably, the Federal Circuit granted a Rule 36 summary affirmance yesterday. This is our recap of the oral argument.
Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Albright v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. The court addressed the holding by the Court of Federal Claims “that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” Chief Judge Prost and Judges Taranto and Linn heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.
Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Conversant Wireless Licensing v. Apple Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the court addressed a district court’s holding that Conversant’s ’151 patent is unenforceable because Nokia, the original patentee, made an untimely disclosure of the patent to the ETSI standards setting body. On appeal, Conversant argues that implied waiver of enforceability requires proof of but-for causation that Conversant inequitably benefited from the untimely disclosure. Judges Reyna and Bryson heard the oral argument, and a third unnamed judge will join the panel later for deliberation and final judgment. This is our argument recap.
This month the Federal Circuit scheduled oral argument in one case that attracted an amicus brief, Amgen Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, Amgen, a patent owner, asked the Federal Circuit to force a district court to vacate its judgment of non-infringement in favor of a consent judgment of infringement. The Federal Circuit, however, never heard oral argument. This is our update in place of our normal argument recap.
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.