FedCircuitBlog

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 two dispositions in patent cases appealed from federal district courts and a disposition in a takings case appealed from Court of Federal Claims. Here are the details.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before a panel that included Judges Newman, Schall, and Dyk. Mobility requested a remand to the Patent and Trademark Office in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., but it also made numerous constitutional challenges to the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Judge Dyk authored the majority opinion in the case, ultimately remanding the case to the Acting Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to consider whether to grant a rehearing in light of Arthrex, but also concluding that Mobility’s constitutional arguments are without merit. Notably, Judge Newman authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. This is our opinion summary.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case we have been following because it attracted dueling amicus briefs. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Prost, and Chen. On appeal, Kannuu argued that due to a forum selection clause in a contract among the parties the Southern District of New York should have ordered Samsung to seek dismissal of inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung. Judge Chen authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the denial of the requested relief. Judge Newman authored a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary. 

Early this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in The Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case involved allegations the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) committed takings under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when it banned bump-fire type rifle stocks. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case, and Judges Taranto, Wallach, and Chen heard the appeal. Judge Taranto authored a short non-precedential opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claims, and Judge Wallach authored an opinion concurring in the result. This is our opinion summary. 

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 dispositions in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, a patent case appealed from a federal district court, and a tax case appealed from the Court of International Trade. We also highlight a new patent case raising a question related to personal jurisdiction and service of process, along with a copyright case that attracted five new amicus briefs. Here are the details.

On August 26 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. Judge Stoll authored the panel’s opinion, which relates to damages law and the exclusion of expert testimony seeking to present a reasonable royalty analysis. This is our opinion summary.

On August 26 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Larson v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Reyna, and Hughes. The judges considered whether the court should overrule what Larson characterized as the Veterans Court’s prohibition of reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities. Judge Hughes authored the court’s opinion, which reversed and remanded the case back to the Veterans Court. This is our opinion summary. 

On August 23 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of the Treasury, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna. These judges considered whether regulations promulgated by the Department of Treasury to curtail “double drawback” (two tax refunds for the same exported merchandise) are invalid. Judge Reyna authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the U.S. Court of International Trade’s judgment finding the regulations to be invalid. This is our opinion summary. 

On August 6 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Buffington v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Chief Judge Moore as well as Judges Lourie and O’Malley. These judges considered whether the Secretary of Veterans Affairs exceeded his statutory authority when he promulgating a regulation related to the timing of resumption of disability benefits payments following a period of active military service. Chief Judge Moore authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Judge O’Malley dissented. This is our opinion summary. 

On August 5 the Federal Circuit issued a new panel opinion in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted numerous amicus briefs. Chief Judge Moore and Judges Newman and Prost formed the panel hearing this case. The court’s new opinion was filed per curiam, with Judge Prost authoring a dissent. In the new opinion, the court again vacated a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law “because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of induced infringement.” Furthermore, as before, the panel reinstated the jury’s damages award “because the district court did not err in its jury instructions on damages.” But the new panel opinion is most notable because it addresses the arguments made in the amicus briefs supporting rehearing. Those amicus briefs argued that the panel’s original opinion “could be read to upset the careful balance struck with . . . carve-outs” in the context of Hatch-Waxman. Indeed, the case involved an alleged, so-called “skinny label,” a label that omits language indicating infringing use. In the panel’s new opinion, the majority maintained that its “narrow, case-specific review of substantial evidence does not upset the careful balance struck by the Hatch-Waxman Act regarding [such] carve-outs.” Here we provide the court’s description of the background of the case, a summary of the court’s analysis, and relevant parts of Judge Prost’s dissent.