FedCircuitBlog

On June 4, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., a patent case we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals appealed a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. Judge Taranto authored the opinion for the panel. Joined by Judges Chen and Hughes, the opinion explains why the Federal Circuit found no error in the district court’s claim construction and affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.

In late May, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., a trademark case we’ve been tracking because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, Curtin appealed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss her opposition after concluding she was not statutorily entitled to oppose a registration. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judges Taranto and Barnett, the Federal Circuit affirmed the underlying decision. This is our opinion summary.

In late April, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Stupp Corporation v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of International Trade that we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit considered whether the use of a statistical test by the Department of Commerce was reasonable. Judge Stark authored the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the Court of International Trade. Judges Lourie and Bryson joined Judge Stark’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.  

On May 12, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an interference proceeding concerning competing patent applications related to using the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system in eukaryotic (e.g., plant or animal) cells. In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Hughes and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision, holding the Board incorrectly applied the legal standard for conception. The panel also affirmed the Board’s determination of compliance with the written requirement and dismissed a cross-appeal as moot. This is our opinion summary. 

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 several new opinions issued, relating to takings, trade, patents, and trademarks. Also, there was one principal and response brief filed in a patent case and two new reply briefs filed in two other patent cases. There were no new cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit that attracted at least one amicus brief. Here are the details.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 13 panels to consider 62 cases. Of these 62 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 39 cases. As always, the Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s Youtube channel. This month, only one case scheduled for oral arguments attracted an amicus brief. That case is an en banc government contract case. Here’s what you need to know about that case.

On May 5, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of Federal Claims. In this takings case, the Federal Circuit reviewed questions related to rails-to-trails conversion, whether the lower court erred when it refused to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court and when it held that right-of-way and damage-release forms landowners signed in the 1840s and 1850s granted a railroad title to fee simple estates in a strip of land used for a railway line. Judge Cunningham authored the the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Judges Stoll and Lourie joined Judge Cunningham’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.  

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed 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. Judge Lourie authored a unanimous opinion for the panel affirming the judgment. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an 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. With respect to these cases, since our last update we highlight one new opinion in government contract case, one new patent case raising a question related to Article III standing, and one new argument recap in a patent case involving a challenge to a district court’s claim construction. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States, a government contract case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Textron appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or in the alternative for summary judgment. In particular, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Textron’s claim as time-barred under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Judges Prost and Clevenger, affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that Textron’s claim had accrued by early 2013 and was untimely when filed in 2020. This is our opinion summary.