FedCircuitBlog

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.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In the last of these three cases, American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, the American Institute for International Steel (and its co-appellants) presented two questions to the Federal Circuit related to the Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. As we noted in our argument preview, these questions ask whether Congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative authority to the President. Last Friday, the parties presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Taranto, Stoll, and Schall. Here is our recap of those arguments.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the Court is considering whether, to recover a trademark infringer’s profit, a trademark owner must prove that the infringer infringed willfully. Here is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these three cases, Sanford Health Plan v. United States, the United States presented two questions to the Federal Circuit related to the Affordable Care Act. As we noted in our argument preview, these questions ask whether health insurance companies may recover cost-sharing payments identified in the ACA but never funded by Congress. Last Thursday, the United States, Sanford Health Plan, and third party Community Health Plan (whose case was consolidated with Sanford for the oral argument) presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Taranto. This is our recap of those arguments.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In the first of these three cases, Dragon Intellectual Property v. Dish Network LLC, Dish Network and Sirius XM Radio presented three questions to the court. As we noted in our argument preview, all three questions revolve around the district court’s finding that they were not prevailing parties and therefore not entitled to attorneys’ fees. The district court reached these conclusions after determining the case had become moot as a result of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of the underlying patent-in-suit. On Tuesday, Dish Network and Sirius XM Radio, along with the appellee’s attorney (representing himself, his co-counsel, and his firm), presented their arguments to a panel that included Judges Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. This is our argument recap.

Last Friday, a panel of the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Google, a patent case. As we noted in our argument preview, Google seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the district court (here, Chief Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas) to dismiss the case for lack of venue. Chief Judge Gilstrap concluded that Google’s “edge servers” located at Internet Service Provider locations within the district constitute a “regular and established place of business” of Google, subjecting Google to venue in the district court. We are keeping track of the case because it attracted an amicus brief. In that brief, a group of companies lodged their support for Google’s position that these servers do not suffice under the venue statute. Here is our argument recap.

On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United States. While both the insurance companies and the government faced a barrage of questions challenging their positions, the government seemed to face more significant resistance to its position. In short, it sounded like several members of the Court lean toward requiring the government to pay the insurance companies for losses incurred in participating in the health insurance market in reliance on a provision in the Affordable Care Act.