FedCircuitBlog

There is one case being argued in August at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief. The case, Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, relates to the apportionment of federal employee retirement annuity supplements pursuant to court orders, for example as a result of divorce decrees. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management asks the court to review whether the Merit Systems Protection Board “misinterpreted 5 U.S.C. § 8421(c) by concluding that OPM cannot divide the annuity supplement at all, unless the division of the annuity supplement is expressly provided for in a court order.” This is our argument preview.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted multiple amicus briefs. The case, Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., raises questions concerning prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the boundaries of judicial discretion at trial. Judges Prost, Reyna, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case we have been following because it attracted several amicus briefs. In this case, Apple appealed from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, arguing the Commission erred in concluding that Masimo established an existing domestic industry, in concluding that five patent claims are infringed and not invalid, and in rejecting Apple’s prosecution laches defense. Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Stark heard the oral arguments. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 9 panels to consider 54 cases. Of the 54 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 35 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This Court Week, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

As we noted earlier this week, two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second of those cases is Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a patent case. In this case, Sonos appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning prosecution laches, written description and priority dates, and summary judgment of invalidity. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case. In this case, Apple appeals from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, arguing the Commission erred in concluding that Masimo established an existing domestic industry, in concluding that five patent claims are infringed and not invalid, and in rejecting Apple’s prosecution laches defense. This is our argument preview.

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 a new opinion issued in a patent case resolving a dispute related to claim construction, a new amicus brief in a patent case addressing discretionarily denials of petitions for inter partes review based on parallel district court litigation, a response brief in a patent case involving a dispute related to claim construction, and an intervenor brief filed by the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in a case involving an appeal and cross-appeal from an inter partes review proceeding. Finally, the court scheduled oral argument next month in two cases that attracted amicus briefs. Here are the details.

On June 4, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., a patent case we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals appealed a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. Judge Taranto authored the opinion for the panel. Joined by Judges Chen and Hughes, the opinion explains why the Federal Circuit found no error in the district court’s claim construction and affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.

In late May, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., a trademark case we’ve been tracking because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, Curtin appealed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss her opposition after concluding she was not statutorily entitled to oppose a registration. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judges Taranto and Barnett, the Federal Circuit affirmed the underlying decision. This is our opinion summary.

In late April, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Stupp Corporation v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of International Trade that we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit considered whether the use of a statistical test by the Department of Commerce was reasonable. Judge Stark authored the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the Court of International Trade. Judges Lourie and Bryson joined Judge Stark’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.