FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted 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 four recent opinions: one addressing injunctive relief, two addressing bilateral tax treaties and their relation to net investment income tax, and one addressing educational benefits for veterans. We also identify two new cases: one raising questions related to injunctive relief, and one raising questions related to the domestic-industry requirement. We highlight two response briefs in cases that raised questions related to inter partes reviews and obviousness; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related remedies against the United States and copyright law; and one intervenor brief in a case that raises questions related to the ability to appeal denial of institution of inter partes review. Here are the details.

This week (and, as it turns out, next Monday) is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 10 panels to consider 56 cases. Of these 56 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 36. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jacki Easlick, LLC v. Accencyc US, a design patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC appealed a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction as well as a denial of a subsequent motion for reconsideration. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Dyk and Schall, the court affirmed the lower court. This is our summary of the opinion.

As we reported Monday, two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in September attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Barron v. United States. In it, 54 plaintiffs appeal dismissals by the Court of Federal Claims of their takings claims. The appeal present questions related to railroad easements and the interpretation of condemnation decrees and deeds under Florida law. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in September attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case. In this case, Netlist appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review, which invalidated a claim of a Netlist patent. This is our argument preview.

As noted on the court’s website, the Federal Circuit will not hear oral arguments this month. According to an article published by Law 360, a court spokesperson said the National Courts Building “is currently undergoing significant, internal infrastructure upgrades that require portions of the building to be inaccessible for safety reasons.” We will resume Court Week postings with the court’s September session.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Bee v. United States, a case involving correction of military records that we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, William Bee appealed the denial of his request to have his military records reflect medical retirement rather than voluntary separation. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Clevenger and Chen, the court vacated the judgment and remanded the case. This is our summary of the opinion.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted at least one amicus brief or the court has appointed amicus counsel. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight three recent opinions in cases raising questions related to military records, tax refunds, and invalidity for lack of enablement, and one order dismissing an appeal. In addition, we highlight three newly identified cases raising questions related to inter partes review proceedings, claim construction, and educational assistance benefits. As for new briefing, we highlight three response briefs in cases that raised questions related to infringement, claim construction, and educational assistance benefits; one principal and response brief in a case that raised copyright and patent questions; three reply briefs in cases that raised questions related to patent eligibility, claim construction, and educational assistance benefits; and seven new amicus briefs in one case that raised a question related to infringement. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in cases that raised questions related to claim construction and veterans educational assistance benefits. Here are the details.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dougherty Electric, Inc. v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Dougherty Electric appealed a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a tax refund suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Lourie and Taranto, the court affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the case. This is our summary of the opinion.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Wyeth appealed a lower court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law of invalidity for lack of enablement. The case presented questions related to claim construction as well as whether pre-issuance provisional rights under the Patent Act extend to induced infringement. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie and joined by Judges Linn and Hughes, the court affirmed the judgment of invalidity. This is our summary of the opinion.