FedCircuitBlog

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.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. One nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade, one comes in patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, and the last opinion comes in response to a petition for review of a decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 judgments. One of the opinions comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The other comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing cases. This morning the court released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed form the District of Nebraska, while both nonprecedential opinions come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of nonprecedential orders grants a motion for summary affirmance in a case appealed form the Court of Federal Claims; the other three orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the first order as well as links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecendential order. The first opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the second comes in an international trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. This morning the court released another nonprecedential order dismissing a case appealed from the Western District of Texas. Here are links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in a trade secret case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. In this case, the majority found the statute of limitations expired. Notably, Judge Prost dissented, taking the position that the panel should not have reversed the jury’s conclusion “that none of the misappropriated trade secrets were time-barred.” The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion addressing a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. That’s all folks. Here is the opinion’s introduction.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Utah. The nonprecedential order remands a case to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Michigan. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Two of the orders deny petitions, one grants summary affirmance, one transfers an appeal, and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first three orders along with links to the transfer and dismissal.