FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In the case, C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., C.R. Bard challenges rulings concerning patent eligibility, definiteness, and anticipation, among other issues. Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., raises questions relating to eligibility of a genetically engineered cultured host cell that contains nucleic acid sequences from at least two different organisms spliced together into a single molecule. This case asks whether a district court erred in holding patent claims ineligible because the inventors merely “combined natural products and put them in a host cell.” Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., raises several questions, most prominently questions concerning patent infringement and the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Judges Prost, Cunningham, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Lesko v. United States, a federal employment law case. The case raises questions ultimately asking whether the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to adopt a requirement that any overtime pay be authorized in writing. This is our argument recap. 

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, raises a question relating to apportionment of federal employee retirement annuity supplements pursuant to court orders, for example, as a result of divorce decrees. This case asks whether the Merit Systems Protection Board misinterpreted 5 U.S.C. § 8421(c) by concluding that the Office of Personnel Management cannot divide annuity supplements at all, unless their division is expressly provided for in a court order. Judges Prost, Wallach, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

On July 31, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, an en banc case involving challenges to the legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. We have been monitoring this case both because it is being considered en banc and because it attracted numerous amicus briefs. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted multiple amicus briefs. The case, Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., raises questions concerning prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the boundaries of judicial discretion at trial. Judges Prost, Reyna, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case we have been following because it attracted several amicus briefs. In this case, Apple appealed from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, arguing the Commission erred in concluding that Masimo established an existing domestic industry, in concluding that five patent claims are infringed and not invalid, and in rejecting Apple’s prosecution laches defense. Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Stark heard the oral arguments. This is our argument recap.

Last month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Percipient.AI v. United States. In this government contract case, the court is considering “who can be ‘an interested party objecting to . . . any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1)?” This is our argument recap. 

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Soto v. United States, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation. As for why, it indicated “the CRSC statute does not explicitly provide its own settlement mechanism.” It then held that “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” Soto challenges these findings by arguing that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC settlement claims. This is our argument recap.