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.
Case Update – Amgen Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.
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.
Argument Recap – Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
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.
Argument Recap – Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC
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.
Review of Oral Argument in Hardy v. U.S.
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.
Argument Recap – Sellers v. Wilkie
Last week three argued cases attracted amicus briefs. One was a veterans case, Sellers v. Wilkie. In it, the Federal Circuit considered “[w]hether a claimant’s general statement requesting benefits on a formal claim form that identifies specific disabilities constitutes a claim for all ‘reasonably identifiable’ diagnoses within the claimant’s records.” The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. and the National Veterans Legal Services Program filed an amicus brief supporting the claimant. Here is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard only one case that attracted an amicus brief. In the case, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., the court confronted several patent-law-related questions. As we noted in our argument preview, these questions related to literal infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, claim construction, damages, and injunctive relief. The amicus brief, however, focused only on the appropriateness of injunctive relief. On Friday, the parties presented their arguments to a panel that included Judges Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc.
Our final argument recap this month comes in Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the court confronts invalidity and infringement arguments related to IFN-β-related polypeptides, which can be used to treat multiple sclerosis. Last Friday, the parties (Plaintiff-Appellee Biogen MA, Inc. and Defendants-Appellants EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer Inc.) presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Newman, Linn, and Hughes.
Argument Recap – Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc.
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.
Argument Recap – Caquelin v. United States
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.