FedCircuitBlog

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. 

On August 2 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Linn, and Chen. Judge Linn authored the majority opinion affirming the district court, and Judge Newman dissented. The opinions relate to the doctrine of standing and the proper interpretation of the bylaws of the University of Michigan as they relate to ownership of intellectual property. This is our opinion summary. 

On August 13, the Federal Circuit issued another order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus, this one in In re DISH Network L.L.C., another case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. While the court denied the petition, the court noted that “the district court here erred in relying on DISH’s general presence in Western Texas without tying that presence to the events underlying the suit.” As a result, the court stated it is “confident the district court will reconsider its determination in light of the appropriate legal standard and precedent on its own.” Also, notably, Judge Reyna wrote a concurring opinion in this case. Here is a summary of the case, the order, and the concurring opinion. 

On August 4, the Federal Circuit also issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Google LLC, another case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. As in In re Apple Inc., the court denied the petition. The court held that “Google has not made a clear and indisputable showing that transfer was required.” The court reasoned it was not “prepared on mandamus to disturb those factual findings” of the district court. Here is a summary of the case and the order. 

Recently, the Federal Circuit denied three petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer cases. We have been following these cases because they attracted amicus briefs. This afternoon we will post three updates summarizing the court’s orders. Up first is in In re Apple Inc. On August 4, the Federal Circuit issued an order in this case denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Judge Reyna authored the order, indicating on behalf of himself and Judges Chen and Stoll that “we cannot say that Apple has shown entitlement to this extraordinary relief.” Here is a summary of the case and the order. 

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 six dispositions, one new case, one case with new briefing, and one oral argument recap. Here are the details.

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 one disposition in a veterans law case, two oral argument recaps in a patent case and a veterans law case, four new patent cases, a patent case with new briefing, and four upcoming oral arguments in related Tucker Act cases. Here are the details.

This past Thursday, the court heard oral argument in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., an appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. We have been following the case because it attracted amicus briefs. On appeal, Kannuu argues that inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung should have been enjoined due to a forum selection clause in a contract among the parties. Kannuu contends that the district court erroneously denied its related motion for a preliminary injunction. The arguments regarding the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract attracted dueling amicus briefs. Judges Newman, Prost, and Chen heard Thursday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit quoted the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as explaining that “‘the precise question the Court must answer in this appeal is: how does the law treat a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill under one period of service and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under an entirely separate qualifying period or periods of service?’” At the Federal Circuit, Judge Newman authored a majority opinion affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which disagreed with the Board of Veterans Appeals on this question. The panel held that “each period of service earns education benefits, subject to its cap of 48 aggregate months of benefits.” Judge Dyk concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with the panel’s holding regarding education benefits. This is our opinion summary.