FedCircuitBlog

As we previously reported, the Federal Circuit recently conducted a panel rehearing in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In this case, Teva petitioned the en banc court to reconsider the panel’s decision that Teva induced infringement through use of a skinny label on its generic version of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) drug Coreg. Teva pointed to Hatch-Waxman and asserted that Congress provided a statutory “carve-out” mechanism allowing a generic to adopt a skinny label for unpatented uses that cannot be blocked by a patent on one method of using the drug. The panel treated the motion as requesting panel rehearing and granted panel rehearing. This is our recap of the rehearing oral argument.

One of the three cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is a death benefit case entitled Rolfingsmeyer v. Office of Personnel Management. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision denying Patricia Rolfingsmeyer a survivor annuity and a basic employee death benefit based on the death of Tina Sammons, her alleged common law spouse. This is our argument preview.

Another case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. In this patent case, the Federal Circuit granted Apple’s motion for an interlocutory appeal to review two different district courts’ holdings with respect to an alleged standing problem. This is our argument preview.

Recently, a panel of the Federal Circuit granted panel rehearing in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In this case, Teva petitioned the en banc court to reconsider the panel’s decision that Teva induced infringement through use of a skinny label on its generic version of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) drug Coreg. The panel treated the petition as requesting panel rehearing, granted the petition, and ordered a second oral argument in the case, which was held this morning. Here are the details of the case.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided In re VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Moore authored a unanimous panel opinion denying VoIP-Pal’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The panel found that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by declining to dismiss the case based on the first-to-file rule. 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 attracted 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, one in a veterans case addressing allegations of delay violating due process and one in a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. We also highlight two new patent cases, one addressing claim construction and the non-obviousness requirement and the other addressing the first-to-file rule and patent eligibility. We also note three upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. Judge Lourie authored the unanimous opinion, which affirmed a district court’s judgment as a matter of law of lack of enablement. The Federal Circuit agreed that undue experimentation would be required to practice the full scope of antibody claims in Amgen’s patents. This is our opinion summary.

This week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Monk v. Tran, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Chen authored a unanimous panel opinion affirming in part a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and dismissing in part the appeal as moot. Specifically, the Federal Circuit agreed that a petition for a writ of mandamus filed at the Veterans Court was moot with respect to several veterans because, after the filing the petition but before the Veterans Court’s disposition of the petition, those veterans received decisions by the Board of Veterans Appeals. The Federal Circuit similarly dismissed as moot another veteran’s appeal because, by the time of the Federal Circuit’s disposition of his appeal, he had received a Board decision on the merits of his case. 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 two dispositions, one new patent case, and new briefing in another patent case. Here are the details.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit decided Veterans4You, Inc. v. United States, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Clevenger authored a unanimous panel opinion reversing the Court of Federal Claim’s conclusion that the “printing mandate” of 44 U.S.C. § 501 applied to a solicitation at issue in the case and obligated Veterans Affairs to route the solicitation through Government Publishing Office. The Federal Circuit agreed with Veterans4You’s argument that, instead, § 501 applies only to the production of written or graphic published materials. According to the Federal Circuit, because the solicited goods at issue in this case did not fall within this category of materials, they do not fall within the printing mandate. This is our opinion summary.