FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases. As for pending petitions, since our last update, four new petitions were filed in a government contract case, a patent case, and two pro se cases; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board; two reply briefs were filed in a takings case and a patent case; and the Supreme Court denied three petitions in a trade case, a takings case, and a veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit granted a petition for en banc initial hearing in Jackler v. Department of Justice to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The question presented is: “Whether the Civil Service Reform Act’s procedural and substantive protections for federal workers conflict with the President’s Article II removal power.” Here is the full text of this morning’s order. We will report more on this case later.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed raising several questions related to attorney’s fees. One new response to a petition was filed in a case a case raising a question related to the Hatch-Waxman Act. A response to a notice of supplemental authority was filed in the same case. And, finally, one petition was denied in a case raising questions related to standing. Here are the details. 

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

• an article discussing how the “Supreme Court on Monday turned away Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to return to service on” the Federal Circuit;
• an article covering how the Supreme Court denied Judge “Newman’s petition for review without comment, as is typical”;
• an article reporting how late last week the Federal Circuit ruled the “U.S. government can continue collecting the 10% worldwide tariff it imposed in February”; and
• an article similarly highlighting how Federal Circuit “extended its block on ​a lower court ruling against the Trump ‌administration’s 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act”;

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

• a blog post reporting how the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a reply brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Judge Newman;
• a blog post highlighting how “a unanimous court rejected the idea that a generics pharmaceutical manufacturer . . . can be held responsible for infringements of patents held by the branded manufacturer . . . based on the decisions of doctors and pharmacies to use the generic compound for patented uses of the drug”;
• a blog post explaining how, when “[c]onfronted with four patents drawn to the same basic invention, the Federal Circuit held one group of claims ineligible and a second group eligible”; and
• a blog post discussing how “more than a dozen patent matters now sit before the [Supreme] Court.”

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, since our last update the Court issued its decision. As for pending petitions, no new petitions were filed; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; and two reply briefs were filed in patent cases. Here are the details.

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.”