This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 11 panels to consider 63 cases. Of the 63 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 44 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, none of the cases scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here are the scheduled cases.
Court Week – November 2024 – What You Need to Know
This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 13 panels to hear 63 cases. Of the 63 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 41 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.
Court Week – October 2024 – What You Need to Know
This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 67 cases. Of the 67 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 50 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. Notably, half of the panels will convene in and around San Francisco. These panels will take place at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law; the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco; Stanford Law School; Santa Clara University School of Law; and the San Francisco and San Jose locations of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The remaining six panels will convene at the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.
Argument Preview – Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
As we mentioned on Monday, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. In this case, Lynk Labs appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding finding all challenged patent claims unpatentable. This is our argument preview.
Opinion Summary – Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission
The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in August in Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the International Trade Commission that Celanese’s asserted patent claims were invalid under the on-sale bar because Celanese sold products made using a patented process more than one year before the effective filing dates of the asserted patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Mayer and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s judgment. According to the panel, “Celanese fail[ed] to show the [America Invents Act] overturned settled precedent that pre-critical date sales of products made using a secret process preclude the patentability of that process.” This is our opinion summary.
Opinion Summary – Freund v. McDonough
Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Freund v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in dismissing the case as moot and denying Freund’s request for class certification. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk that was joined by Judges Hughes and Stoll, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit held that the case was not moot as to the class claims because it “satisfie[d] the inherently transitory standard” and that the lower court “abused its discretion in finding that the adequacy and commonality requirements for class certifications were not met.” This is our opinion summary
Court Week – September 2024 – What You Need to Know
This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 10 panels to consider 54 cases. Of the 54 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 37 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, none of the cases scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here are the scheduled cases.
Court Week – August 2024 – What You Need to Know
This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene just 3 panels to consider 16 cases. Of these cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 11 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, just one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here’s what you need to know about that case.
Opinion Summary – Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss inducement claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the District of Delaware in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Western District of Texas Judge Alan Albright, who sat by designation. This is our opinion summary.
Opinion Summary – Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc.
Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the District of Delaware that an out-of-state non-party was in contempt of court for disregarding an order requiring her to testify at a hearing. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Hughes that was joined by Judges Prost and Stoll, affirmed the contempt order of the district court. This is our opinion summary.