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 recent opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: one a patent case and one a trade case; three new cases we have identified that attracted amicus briefs: a takings case, a trademark case, and a veterans case; and new briefing in several cases that previously attracted amicus briefs: a new response brief in a patent case, two new reply briefs in patent cases, and supplemental briefing in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of International Trade that “the statutory authority to ‘modify’ a safeguard is limited to trade-liberalizing changes” and that Proclamation 10101 exceeded the President’s authority. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark joined by Judges Lourie and Taranto, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that the “the President’s view that a ‘modification’ may include a change in a trade-restricting direction, and is not limited to trade-liberalizing changes, is not unreasonable.” This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this year the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Sun’s patent claims in an inter partes review proceeding for failure to meet the non-obviousness requirement. In an opinion by Judge Stark, joined by Judges Linn and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s judgment. In particular, the court held that the Board had “substantial evidence to conclude that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation” of success in modifying compounds as directed in Sun’s patent claims.

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 one new Equal Pay Act case, the filing of new briefs in two patent cases, and the filing of new amicus briefs in another patent case. Here are the details.

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 a new patent case, a reply brief in another patent case, oral arguments in a takings case and a pro se case, and an opinion in a patent case. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in W.J. v. Department of Health and Human Services. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a special master’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Notably, in this pro se case, the Federal Circuit appointed amicus curiae to file a brief and argue on behalf of the appellant. The panel hearing the argument included Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stark. This is our argument recap.

On Monday, the Federal circuit issued its opinion in In re Cellect, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. In an opinion by Judge Lourie joined by Judges Dyk and Reyna, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In particular, the court held that “ODP for a patent that has received [Patent Term Adjustment], regardless whether or not a terminal disclaimer is required or has been filed, must be based on the expiration date of the patent after PTA has been added.” 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 four new cases: a takings case concerning a moratorium on eviction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, two new related patent cases, and a pro se case. Additionally, we highlight opinions in two patent cases. Further, the new takings case and pro se case are both set to be argued next month. Here are the details.

In early August, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In an opinion by Judge Reyna joined by Judge Taranto, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court. Judge Newman, however, filed a dissenting opinion. 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 opinions, two in takings cases and one in a vaccine case, and a summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. We also highlight reply brief in a patent case and oral arguments in two cases, a patent case and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the details.