FedCircuitBlog

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, a patent case that attracted seven amicus briefs. In this case, Amneal alleged that Teva delayed the entry of generic products into the market by improperly listing certain patents in the Orange Book. The District of New Jersey agreed and required Teva to delist its patents from the Orange Book. Teva appealed, and the Federal Circuit stayed the lower courts order pending its resolution of the appeal. Late last month, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Taranto and Hughes, the Federal Circuit lifted the stay and affirmed the district court’s delisting order. This is our opinion summary.

As we highlighted yesterday, four cases scheduled to be argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is United Water Conservation District v. United States. In this case, United Water Conservation District appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed its takings claim. The court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. This is our argument preview.

Four cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Dinh v. United States. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that, because Congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. This is our argument preview.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion earlier this month in Metropolitan Area EMS Authority v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a rule promulgated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that permitted VA to pay the lesser of the actual charge or the Medicare fee schedule (MFS) amount for all non-contract ground and air ambulance transports. The petitioners in this case sought review of this rule. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Lourie and Stark, the Federal Circuit granted the petition and set aside the rule as not in accordance with law given the governing statute. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, in the only pending en banc patent case, which presents a question concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses, the opening en banc brief was filed, the Federal Circuit issued an order indicating parts of the opening brief went beyond the scope of en banc rehearing, and five new amicus briefs were filed. Additionally, a new petition was filed raising questions related to reliance on expert testimony in applying the doctrine of equivalents. Finally, the court denied two petitions raising questions regarding the written description requirement, obvious-type double patenting, and attorney fees. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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. One comes in a government contract case raising questions related to breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and recovery of certain termination-for-convenience damages. The other comes in a patent case raising questions related the propriety of an antisuit injunction. The other update is new briefing in another patent case raising questions related to whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment of patent eligibility, noninfringement, and denial of damages. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Restem appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which resulted in challenged claims being found not unpatentable. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the government. Judges Lourie, Stoll, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion late last month in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s denial of an antisuit injunction sought by Lenovo against Ericsson. Lenovo sought to prevent Ericsson from enforcing injunctions it was awarded in Colombian and Brazilian cases preventing Lenovo from infringing Ericsson’s patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Lourie and Reyna, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s denial and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our opinion summary

In late September the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in ACLR, LLR v. US, a government contract case that we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a grant of summary judgment by the Court of Federal Claims on ACLR’s claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and recovery of certain termination-for-convenience damages. The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government based on ACLR’s purported failure to keep records sufficient to establish costs it was seeking to recover as damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Stark that was joined by Judge Prost and Judge Hughes. This is our opinion summary.