FedCircuitBlog

Last week, we reported that the Federal Circuit issued a relatively rare opinion granting panel rehearing in a patent case, Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. In the original, now-vacated opinion, a panel comprised of Judges O’Malley and Linn, with Chief Judge Moore dissenting, indicated the court would affirm a district court’s judgment that claims are not invalid for inadequate written description. Notably, however, a different panel ruled on the motion for panel rehearing. In particular, with Judge O’Malley’s retirement from the court, Judge Hughes joined the panel. The new panel, and in particular Chief Judge Moore (no longer dissenting) and Judge Hughes, with Judge Linn now dissenting, granted the petition for panel rehearing, vacated the panel’s prior decision, and, in the new opinion, now reverse the district court’s judgment. Perhaps most importantly, the changed outcome reflects a difference of view regarding application of the written description requirement. Here is an update on the case.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales USA, Inc., a patent case in which Thales appeals a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Thales sought to “prevent Philips from pursuing an . . . exclusion order against Thales” at the International Trade Commission based on a commitment by Philips to license its patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. We’ve been following this case because two amicus briefs were filed in support of Thales. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Memmer v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Memmer appeals a decision by the Court of Federal Claims concerning a Notice of Interim Trail Use issued by the Surface Transportation Board. In particular, Memmer challenges the lower court’s analysis of causation as well as its decision that “the duration of the taking lasted as long as the railroad’s abandonment authority existed.” The United States cross-appeals to argue that the lower court “erred in holding that Indiana Southwestern would have abandoned [its right to use the property in question] if the NITU had not issued.” One amicus brief was filed in support of Memmer. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Thaler v. Vidal, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Thaler is the developer, user, and owner of DABUS, an artificial intelligence system that created the two inventions at issue in the case. On appeal, Thaler seeks review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which decided that an artificial intelligence machine cannot be an “inventor” under the Patent Act. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene 10 panels to consider about 55 cases. Of these 55 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 39. Of these argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: two patent cases and one takings case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales USA, Inc., a patent case in which Thales appeals a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to “prevent Philips from pursuing an . . . exclusion order against Thales.” Two amicus briefs were filed in support of Thales, one by the App Association and the other a joint brief by Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., U-Blox America, Inc., and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Memmer v. United States, a takings case in which Memmer appeals a decision by the Court of Federal Claims concerning a Notice of Interim Trail Use issued by the Surface Transportation Board. In the appeal, Memmer challenges the lower court’s analysis of causation as well as its decision that “the duration of the taking lasted as long as the railroad’s abandonment authority existed.” The United States cross-appeals to argue that the lower court “erred in holding that Indiana Southwestern would have abandoned if the NITU had not issued.” One amicus brief was filed in support of Memmer. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Thaler v. Vidal. Thaler is the developer, user, and owner of DABUS, an artificial intelligence system that created the two inventions at issue without the assistance of a human inventor. In this case, Thaler seeks review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, deciding that “an artificial intelligence machine cannot be an ‘inventor’ under the Patent Act.” 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 three cases with upcoming oral arguments: two patent cases and one takings case. Additionally, there is one patent case with new briefing.

Last month, the court heard oral argument in LaBonte v. United States, a veterans case where LaBonte is challenging a “Court of Federal Claims decision that military correction boards established under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 may not grant disability retirement to service members whose ‘Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,’ a standard separation document known as a ‘DD-214’ form, contains reference to a court martial.” Two amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiff-appellant, LaBonte, one by Military Law Practitioners and another a joint brief by the National Veterans Legal Services Program and Protect Our Defenders. Judges Chen, Schall, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.