FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a patent case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. In this case, Hikma Pharmaceuticals challenged a Federal Circuit decision 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.” In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. This is our summary of the Supreme Court’s opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential orders and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential orders comes in a government contract case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and the other comes in a takings case appealed from the court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential orders transfers a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Eastern District of Virginia, and the other transfers a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Eastern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential orders. One denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Western District of Texas, one grants a petition to remand a case to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, one grants summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one transfers a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the District of Maryland, one grants summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one transfers a case appealed from the District of New Mexico to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and, lastly, one transfers a case appealed from the Central District of California to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Here are the introductions to the orders.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to remand in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two dismiss appeals, and one dismisses a petition. This morning, the Court released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and four additional nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and the other comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, one summarily affirms a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, two dismiss appeals, and one dismisses a petition. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than the dismissals, as well as links to the dismissals.

Recently the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ollnova Technologies, Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the patent owner, Ollnova, appeals a district court’s denial of requested prejudgment interest, and the accused infringer, Ecobee, cross-appeals the district court’s decisions on jury instructions and multiple issues including eligibility, infringement, damages, and marking. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Cunningham and Stark, the panel affirmed-in-part, dismissed-in-part, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case. This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is a link to it.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Arendi S.A.R.L. appealed a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. In an opinion authored by Judge Linn and joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes, the court affirmed the judgment. This is our summary of the opinion.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Court released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia, and the other comes in a government contracts case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. One nonprecedential order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one withdraws a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Eastern District of Texas, and the last order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than dismissals, as well as links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two new nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. That’s all. Here is a link to the dismissal.