FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Farrington v. Department of Transportation, an employment law case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. There, the Board determined that Farrington was not subject to whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Judges Lourie, Mayer, and Prost heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States, a government contract case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal of a complaint seeking damages based on alleged government-caused delays in a contractor’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations. Judges Dyk, Clevenger, and Prost heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 15 panels to consider 71 cases. Of the 71 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 56 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States, a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a dismissal of a complaint seeking damages based on alleged government-caused delays in a contractor’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations. This is our argument preview.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case that we have been watching because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding that certain patent claims are unpatentable in light of prior art. The oral argument focused on “whether the Board erred in determining that . . . a published and later abandoned U.S. patent application . . . can be applied in an IPR as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).” That statutory subsection says that “a petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent . . . only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” What the appellant and one amicus brief argued is that a patent application that never issues as a patent is not a patent nor does it qualify as a printed publication when its publication date is after the effective filing date of the patent subject to the inter partes review proceeding. The Federal Circuit, however, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Lourie and Judge Stark, affirmed the Board. It found no error in the Board’s unpatentability determinations using, as the relevant date for prior art purposes, the abandoned patent application’s filing date. This is our opinion summary.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument Marmen Inc. v. United States, a trade case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final antidumping duty determination that assigned a dumping margin on Marmen, a Canadian wind tower producer. Judges Prost, Taranto, and Chen heard oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in HMTX Industries LLC v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, HMTX appeals a judgment by the Court of International Trade, which upheld the U.S. Trade Representative’s tariffs on Chinese goods. HMTX alleged USTR’s tariffs “on hundreds of billions of dollars of imported Chinese goods are ultra vires and procedurally infirm.” This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Dinh v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. That court held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Stoll, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.