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.
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Arellano v. Tran. In this case, the court is considering the availability of equitable tolling in the context of a statutory provision addressing veterans who request disability benefits by filing an application within one year from the date of the their discharge or release. This is our argument recap.
As we have been reporting, last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of the patent cases, MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. This is our argument recap.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, former owners of bump-fire type rifle stocks assert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed a taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is our argument recap.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of them was a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.” This is our argument recap.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of the patent cases, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the court considered the enablement requirement with respect to antibody claims. This is our argument recap.
Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of those cases, Euzebio v. Wilkie, the court heard arguments concerning the following veterans law issues: (1) whether “[t]he Veterans Court’s ‘direct relationship’ requirement is an erroneous legal standard for determining what facts are before the Board;” (2) whether “the Veterans Court erred in holding that it lacks the legal authority to look at relevant facts known to the agency for purposes of reviewing the Board’s decision;” and (3) whether “the Veterans Court misinterpreted the scope of VA’s duty to assist when it affirmed VA’s failure to develop the record with relevant facts concededly known to the agency.” This is our argument recap.
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit also heard oral argument in Boeing Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force. We have been following this case because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, the court is considering whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in holding that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 252.227-7013 precludes government contractors from marking technical data delivered to the Government in a certain way. In particular, Boeing argues it should be permitted to mark technical data in a way that (a) recognizes the Government’s unlimited rights in the data, (b) does not restrict or impair the Government’s rights, and (c) restricts only the rights of third parties to use the data absent permission from the contractor or the Government. This is our argument recap.