FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case that attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which found all challenged patent claims unpatentable. The argument focused on the fourth issue presented, “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 argue 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. Judge Lourie, Prost, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 67 cases. Of the 67 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 50 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel.  Notably, half of the panels will convene in and around San Francisco. These panels will take place at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law; the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco; Stanford Law School; Santa Clara University School of Law; and the San Francisco and San Jose locations of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The remaining six panels will convene at the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion yesterday in Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., a Lanham Act case that we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for Crocs against Dawgs’ counterclaim alleging false advertising violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Crocs based on Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent it interpreted as legally barring Dawgs’ counterclaim. The Federal Circuit, however, reversed and remanded the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Reyna that was joined by Judge Cunningham and Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas, who sat by designation. This is our opinion summary.

As we have highlighted this week, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission. In this case, US Synthetic appeals a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. This is our argument preview.

As we mentioned on Monday, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. In this case, Lynk Labs appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding finding all challenged patent claims unpatentable. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 two new response briefs, one in a case raising questions related to whether a district court erred in denying a motion to intervene and to unseal court records and another in a patent case involving a challenge to a district court’s injunction requiring the delisting of patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book; two new reply briefs, one in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility, claim construction, and infringement and another in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility; and five new amicus briefs in the patent case challenging the delisting of patents from the Orange Book. Here are the details.

There are three cases that will be argued in October at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents are not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. This is our argument preview.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in August in Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the International Trade Commission that Celanese’s asserted patent claims were invalid under the on-sale bar because Celanese sold products made using a patented process more than one year before the effective filing dates of the asserted patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Mayer and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s judgment. According to the panel, “Celanese fail[ed] to show the [America Invents Act] overturned settled precedent that pre-critical date sales of products made using a secret process preclude the patentability of that process.” This is our opinion summary.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Darby Development Co. v. United States, a case that attracted three amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a takings claim by owners of residential rental properties. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the owners did state a claim for a physical taking, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. This is our opinion summary.