FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article reporting how the “Trump administration said it will appeal a judge’s authority to order across-the-board refunds of all tariffs ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court”;
• a blog post discussing how the “Solicitor General has now filed the government’s brief in opposition in Hyatt v. Squires, . . . urging the Supreme Court to leave the Federal Circuit’s prosecution laches doctrine undisturbed”;
• a blog post suggesting a patent case pending in Texas “is notable” given the patent owner’s argument “that as a matter of law ongoing infringement constitutes irreparable harm, because . . . federal courts are obligated to apply the law of equity as it would have been understood” as of 1789; and
• an article explaining the Federal Circuit’s decision not to hold oral arguments in August is “because infrastructure work is being done on its courthouse.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, OpenSky cross appeals to challenge sanctions issued by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office as part of an inter partes review proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, this case is related to VLSI Technology LLC v. OpenSky Industries, LLC, which was argued in May. Judges Dyk, Linn, and Reyna heard the oral argument last week. This is our argument recap.

Last month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Wyeth appeals a lower court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law of invalidity. The case presents questions related to claim construction as well as whether pre-issuance provisional rights under the Patent Act extend to induced infringement. Judges Lourie, Linn, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. We highlight:

• an article discussing how the Supreme Court’s decision “may make generic drugmakers less vulnerable to patent ‌lawsuits involving so-called ‘skinny labels’”;
• an article similarly reporting how the Supreme Court’s decision “is expected to strengthen legal protections for generic manufacturers that launch products using the Hatch-Waxman Act’s ‘carve-out’ process”;
• a blog post suggesting the Supreme Court’s decision “scolded” the Federal Circuit “for its recent approach” and “has potentially far-reaching implications for the induced infringement standard across sectors”; and
• an article emphasizing that “all nine justices” joined Justice Jackson’s opinion in this “closely watched pharmaceutical patent dispute.”

Last month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in VLSI Technology LLC v. OpenSky Industries, LLC, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, VLSI appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. Notably, a related cross-appeal, OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, was argued separately this month. Judges Dyk, Linn, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent infringement. The Federal Circuit had rejected “characterizations that a reversal in this case would ‘effectively eviscerate section viii carve-outs’” of the Hatch-Waxman Act and held that Amarin had “plausibly pleaded that Hikma . . . induced infringement.” The Supreme Court disagreed. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson, the Court decided mere plausibility that a physician could read relevant statements “as an instruction or encouragement to” infringe did not rise to the required standard of taking “active steps” to induce patent infringement. Here is the introduction and conclusion of today’s opinion. We plan to post a full opinion summary soon.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, we are waiting for the Court to issue its decision. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; one reply brief was filed in a trade case; seven amicus briefs were filed in a patent case; and the Supreme Court denied three petitions in a takings case, a veterans case, and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new response to a petition was filed in a case raising questions related to standing and contract reformation, and four new amicus briefs were filed in a case raising a question related to damages. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post suggesting that, “when the PTAB reverses a [35 U.S.C.] § 101 rejection out of Art Unit 3662, it is worth a look to see what went right for the Applicant”;
• an article reporting how “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office data indicates the office mistakenly kept hundreds of thousands of records of patent ownership transfers from becoming public for years”;
• an article observing that Chief Judge “Moore . . . retained a PR firm to publicize a cartoon theme song that she apparently commissioned”; and
• an article indicating a “‘flood’ of lawsuits against Section 122 tariffs . . . is seen as unlikely.”

This week (and, as it turns out, next Monday) is Court week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 15 panels to consider 77 cases. Of the 77 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 56. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, one case scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about this one case.