FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. The issue on appeal in this case was whether patent term extension for a reissued patent “should be calculated based on the issue date of the original patent or the reissued patent.” The Federal Circuit reviewed a district court determination that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office correctly calculated a reissued patent term extension based on the patent’s original issue date. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Mayer and Reyna, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s determination. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit also released its opinion in AliveCor, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that we have been following because it attracted several amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit was asked to review a judgment of the International Trade Commission in a patent infringement case that resulted in a limited exclusion order restricting importation of Apple’s watch products. In a per curium opinion issued by a panel including Judges Hughes, Linn, and Stark, however, the Federal Circuit vacated the Commission’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., a patent case that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed three written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in related inter partes review proceedings. The PTAB found all claims of three patents unpatentable over certain asserted prior art. AliveCor challenged the PTAB’s findings, including by arguing that the IPR petitioner, Apple, violated its discovery obligations. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Hughes and Linn, affirmed the PTAB’s obviousness determination and declined to address AliveCor’s discovery challenge because it failed to raise the issue at the PTAB. This is our opinion summary.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States, a government contract case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss HDCC’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. HDCC alleged that the government owed it an “equitable adjustment for various delays and increased costs” during its contract performance, and that HDCC “experienced excusable delays due to government changes and additions to the contact work relating to the retaining wall construction.” In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Dyk and Clevenger, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of HDCC’s claim regarding excusable delay related to a retaining wall; reversed the lower court’s dismissal with respect to government delays for delivery of rights of way, utility relocation, and a repayment claim; and remanded the case for further proceedings.

As we highlighted on Monday, three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc. In it, Rebecca Curtin appeals a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded that she is not entitled to oppose UTH’s application to register the mark RAPUNZEL under a test known as the zone of interests framework. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Stupp Corporation v. United States. In it, Stupp Corporation appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained the Department of Commerce’s finding upholding the application of a particular test in the differential pricing analysis to calculate antidumping margins. This is our argument preview.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight an opinion in a patent case reviewing determinations by the International Trade Commission of patent ineligibility and no lack of enablement; three oral argument recaps in a patent case concerning patent term extension reissued patents, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a government contract case; and a new patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

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.