FedCircuitBlog

This evening the Federal Circuit announced that it will be closed tomorrow, January 6, due to inclement weather and that it will conduct tomorrow’s proceedings by remote videoconferencing. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, a patent case that attracted seven amicus briefs. In this case, Amneal alleged that Teva delayed the entry of generic products into the market by improperly listing certain patents in the Orange Book. The District of New Jersey agreed and required Teva to delist its patents from the Orange Book. Teva appealed, and the Federal Circuit stayed the lower courts order pending its resolution of the appeal. Late last month, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Taranto and Hughes, the Federal Circuit lifted the stay and affirmed the district court’s delisting order. This is our opinion summary.

The Federal Circuit announced today that it will be closed and not hold oral arguments previously scheduled for Thursday, January 9 in observance of the National Day of Mourning for President Carter. Here is the full text of the announcement.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, earlier this month the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, and we have since posted our argument recap. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; waivers of the right to respond were filed in two patent cases, a case addressing Rule 36, and two pro se cases; briefs in opposition were filed in two patent cases; replies in support of petitions were filed in a patent case, a case addressing Rule 36, a veterans case, and a case addressing procedure; and six amicus briefs were filed in a case addressing Rule 36. In addition, the Court denied the petition in the case addressing procedure. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion earlier this month in Metropolitan Area EMS Authority v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a rule promulgated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that permitted VA to pay the lesser of the actual charge or the Medicare fee schedule (MFS) amount for all non-contract ground and air ambulance transports. The petitioners in this case sought review of this rule. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Lourie and Stark, the Federal Circuit granted the petition and set aside the rule as not in accordance with law given the governing statute. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court denied two petitions raising the same question related to claim construction. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Federal Circuit. In this case, the Supreme Court is considering whether “a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.” This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, in the only pending en banc patent case, which presents a question concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses, the opening en banc brief was filed, the Federal Circuit issued an order indicating parts of the opening brief went beyond the scope of en banc rehearing, and five new amicus briefs were filed. Additionally, a new petition was filed raising questions related to reliance on expert testimony in applying the doctrine of equivalents. Finally, the court denied two petitions raising questions regarding the written description requirement, obvious-type double patenting, and attorney fees. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a report covering how Judge “Newman is appealing her suspension and has also filed a motion to unseal documents related to an investigation which ultimately led to her being temporarily removed from the bench”;
• an article highlighting how Judge Newman “continues to fight against a suspension from the bench that was handed over to her by colleagues who believe she is ‘mentally unfit’”;
• an article describing how “[t]wo key amicus briefs were filed on Thursday, December 12, backing Judge Pauline Newman’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the dismissal of her case against the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)”; and
• an article discussing how in a recent amicus brief “six retired judges argued” that “the Federal Circuit circumvented the US Senate and dealt a blow to the independence of all federal judges when it suspended 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing how Judge Newman, “the nation’s oldest active federal judge, asked the D.C. Circuit to end a suspension imposed by her colleagues that prevents her from hearing cases at the Federal Circuit”;
• remarks by retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel on Judge Newman’s case at the D.C. Circuit;
• an article highlighting how Illinois Senator Dick Durbin and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have taken opposite sides on the PREVAIL Act; and
• an opinion piece by retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel suggesting “lawmakers should do everything they can to pass” the PREVAIL Act “promptly.”