The Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in a patent case decided by the Federal Circuit, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. In this case, the Court is considering “[w]hether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – FS.COM Inc. v. International Trade Commission
The Federal Circuit heard oral argument earlier this month in FS.COM Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the ITC that Panduit Corp. and The Siemon Company infringed certain patents and The Siemon Company and FS.com Inc. infringed one patent. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Hughes. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC
In February, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a district court that Jazz must request the Food and Drug Administration remove (or “delist”) one of its patents from the FDA’s so-called Orange Book because that patent was improperly listed. The panel hearing the oral argument included Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Taranto. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc.
In February, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc., a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a district court that Realtime’s patents are directed to an abstract idea and lack inventive concept and are thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The panel hearing the oral argument included Judges Newman, Reyna, and Taranto. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc.
On February 10, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a district court that Bard’s patent claims are directed to patent-ineligible printed matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, moreover, lack an inventive concept. With respect to the cross-appeal, the court will similarly consider whether MedComp’s patent claims are ineligible. The panel hearing the oral argument included Judges Chen, Wallach, and Hughes. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Adams v. United States
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Adams v. United States. In this case, the court is considering whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitles federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Secretary of Defense v. Raytheon Co.
On November 1, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Secretary of Defense v. Raytheon Co., a government contract case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the government appeals a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals relating to Raytheon’s compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulations regarding whether lobbying and acquisition and divesture costs may be passed on to the government. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Taranto. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Ideker Farms v. United States
Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, a case that concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. The government appealed the CFC’s judgment, while Ideker Farms cross-appealed. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Taranto. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Behrens v. United States
Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Behrens v. United States, which involves a claim that the federal government is liable for taking land for public use through the National Trails System Act. In this case, the Behrens appealed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation because the scope of the easement in question was broad enough to encompass railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail. Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Arellano v. McDonough
The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in a veterans case, Arellano v. McDonough, to consider the following questions:
- “Does Irwin’s rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling apply to the one-year statutory deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, has the Government rebutted that presumption?”
- “If 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to equitable tolling, should this case be remanded so the agency can consider the particular facts and circumstances in the first instance?”
In other words, the parties argued for and against the application of equitable estoppel to the one-year filing deadline for retroactive veterans benefits. This is our argument recap.