FedCircuitBlog

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.

As we have reported, three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC. In it, Teva challenges a district court’s injunction requiring it to delist five patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. This is our argument preview.

As we have highlighted, three cases scheduled to be argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a case involving a taking claim. In this case, ATS Ford Drive Investment appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the government. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC. In it, Restem appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding that found challenged claims not unpatentable. This is our argument preview.

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 one new opinion in a case raising a question related to se advertising counterclaims under the Lanham Act; two new cases, one a takings case and another a patent case; and new briefing in a case raising questions related to whether a district court erred in denying a motion to intervene and to unseal court records. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents were not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Hughes heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case that attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which found all challenged patent claims unpatentable. The argument focused on the fourth issue presented, “whether the Board erred in determining that . . . a published and later abandoned U.S. patent application . . . can be applied in an IPR as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).” That statutory subsection says that “a petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent . . . only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” What the appellant and one amicus brief argue is that a patent application that never issues as a patent is not a patent nor does it qualify as a printed publication when its publication date is after the effective filing date of the patent subject to the inter partes review proceeding. Judge Lourie, Prost, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.