As we mentioned yesterday, four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second case we are previewing is Boeing Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force. In this case, the court will consider whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in holding that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 252.227-7013 precludes government contractors from marking technical data delivered to the Government in a certain way. In particular, Boeing argues it should be permitted to mark technical data in a way that (a) recognizes the Government’s unlimited rights in the data, (b) does not restrict or impair the Government’s rights, and (c) restricts only the rights of third parties to use the data absent permission from the contractor or the Government. This is our argument preview.
Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Monk v. Wilkie, a veterans case we have been tracking because it attracted five amicus briefs. The panel comprised of Judges Newman, Lourie, and Reyna unanimously affirmed a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that the petitioners in this case did not meet the commonality requirement for class certification. Judge Newman wrote the opinion, and Judge Reyna provided additional views in a separate opinion. Here is a summary of the opinions.
Four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Veterans4You LLC v. United States. In this case, Veterans4You asserts that the VA wrongly invoked the “printing mandate” in 44 U.S.C. § 501 to route a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) procurement through the Government Publishing Office (“GPO”). Veterans4You contends this approach resulted in a violated of the “Rule of Two,” a statutory preference for veteran-owned small businesses or service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. Veterans4You argues that the decision by the Court of Federal Claims upholding the VA’s action should be reversed. 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 three dispositions in patent cases addressing estoppel related to inter partes review, anticipation, and induced infringement; new briefing in another patent case related to standing; one recent oral argument in a patent case addressing personal jurisdiction; and four upcoming oral arguments in veterans and government contracts cases.
On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a case we have been tracking because it attracted three amicus briefs. Judge Newman authored the majority opinion, which Judge Moore joined. Judges Newman and Moore vacated a district court’s judgment as a matter of law and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate a jury verdict of induced infringement in favor of GlaxoSMithKline based on indications of use in labels applied by Teva, a generic drug manufacturer. Chief Judge Prost filed a thirty-three page dissenting opinion, taking the majority to task for “creating infringement liability for any generic entering the market with a [so-called] skinny label, and by permitting infringement liability for a broader label that itself did not actually cause any direct infringement.” Here is a summary of the majority and dissenting opinions.
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, a panel of the court composed of Judges Prost, Newman, and Bryson unanimously affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a district court’s construction of claim terms. The court also vacated the district court’s granting of JMOL based on estoppel due to a previous inter partes review proceeding. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment that the asserted claims were not improperly broadened. Based on its holdings, the court remanded the case back to the district court. Here is a summary of the opinion.
On Friday the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Google, a case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In the order, the court denied the petition because, it found, Google did not meet its heavy burden. Moreover, the court indicated that Google may obtain meaningful review after a final judgment is issued in its pending case. 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 patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions, three new cases that attracted amicus briefs, two recent oral arguments, and one upcoming oral argument.
As we previously reported, last week in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC the Federal Circuit granted panel rehearing, issued a modified panel opinion, and denied en banc rehearing. Facebook sought rehearing to challenge the panel’s decisions concerning joinder in inter partes review proceedings, as well as the broader question of whether the Federal Circuit owes deference to interpretations of statutory provisions made by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Precedential Opinions Panel. Here we summarize the modified panel opinion.
On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sanford Health Plan v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. In the opinion, a panel composed of Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Taranto unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims that the Affordable Care Act “provision on reimbursement of cost-sharing reductions is ‘money-mandating’ and that the government is liable for money damages for its failure to make reimbursements for the 2017 reductions.” Here is a summary of the opinion.