FedCircuitBlog

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.

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.