FedCircuitBlog

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. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight two new opinions, four recent oral arguments, and five upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

As we have been noting all week, five cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The fifth of those case is Micron Technology Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC, a patent case. In it, Longhorn IP and Katana Silicon Technologies appeal from a district court’s imposition of bonds they say effectively preclude them from prosecuting claims for patent infringement. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, five cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a trademark case. In it, Crocs appeals a denial of a general exclusion order by the International Trade Commission. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, five cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. As we reported yesterday, two of these cases will be argued together, and both are styled In re United States. In the second case, the International Trade Commission petitions the Federal Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Court of International Trade to retain the Commission’s designation of certain information as business proprietary information and to vacate a related opinion and order. This is our argument preview.

Five cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. Two of these cases will be argued together, and both are styled In re United States. In the first case, the United States on behalf of the International Trade Commission appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade. The United States argues the CIT abused its discretion in denying a joint motion to redact business proprietary information submitted to the Commission under a promise of confidentiality. This is our argument preview.

Five cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case. In this case, Arendi appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. This is our argument preview.

Two weeks ago, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB affirmed an administrative judge’s decision that a statutory provision requires the Office of Personnel Management “to divide an annuity supplement only if expressly provided for in a court order.” Judge Prost authored an opinion for the Federal Circuit affirming the judgment. In particular, the court held “that OPM cannot divide a retiree’s annuity supplement unless the division of the supplement is expressly provided for in a court order.” This is our opinion summary.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., raises questions relating to eligibility of a genetically engineered cultured host cell that contains nucleic acid sequences from at least two different organisms spliced together into a single molecule. This case asks whether a district court erred in holding patent claims ineligible because the inventors merely “combined natural products and put them in a host cell.” Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., raises several questions, most prominently questions concerning patent infringement and the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Judges Prost, Cunningham, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in HMTX Industries LLC v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Court of International Trade. That court held that certain actions of the U.S. Trade Representative did not exceed statutory authority and satisfied requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Hughes authored an opinion for the Federal Circuit affirming the judgment of the Court of International Trade. This is our opinion summary.