FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case being heard by the court en banc. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and, in the process, determining whether to adopt a more flexible test for analyzing design patent obviousness compared to the existing “Rosen-Durling” test. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. LNW Gaming, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal from two judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method review proceedings. New Vision contended the overall structure for instituting and funding post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act “creates impermissible incentives for the PTAB, its leadership, and the individual administrative patent judges.” These incentives, New Vision argued, violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. New Vision also argued the “petitions should have been denied pursuant to the contractual obligation that all disputes over the [relevant] agreement are to be resolved in a Nevada court.” Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna heard the argument This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case we are following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the District of Delaware ruling on patent infringement and invalidity claims. The district court held that, if approved, Norwich’s Abbreviated New Drug Application would induce infringement of certain Salix patent claims (the “HE,” “IBS-D,” and “Polymorph” claims). Additionally, the court held that, while Salix’s HE claims are nonobvious and therefore not invalid, the asserted Polymorph and IBS-D claims are invalid as obvious. Both parties appealed the district court’s judgment. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in City of Fresno v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment related to breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims. The plaintiffs argue on appeal that the trial court erred both in concluding that the contractual water rights in question were subordinate to the rights of others during a drought and by dismissing takings claims for lack of standing. Judges Moore, Clevenger, and Stark heard the argument. This is our argument recap. 

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Beaudette v. McDonough. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to hear appeals of adverse decisions pertaining to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. Judges Moore, Dyk, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Chestek PLLC. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of Chestek’s trademark application based on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. Judges Lourie, Chen, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap. 

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Boyer v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims to grant the government’s motion for summary judgment of a pay discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act. The appeal relates primarily to the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court incorrectly relied only on salary history to establish its affirmative defense. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Stoll heard the parties’ arguments. This is our argument recap. 

This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. In this case, the Supreme Court is considering whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” This is our argument recap.

This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. In this case, the Court is considering whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [of the Lanham Act] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in W.J. v. Department of Health and Human Services. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a special master’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Notably, in this pro se case, the Federal Circuit appointed amicus curiae to file a brief and argue on behalf of the appellant. The panel hearing the argument included Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stark. This is our argument recap.