FedCircuitBlog

In late February, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in W.J. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a special master’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Federal Circuit appointed amicus curiae counsel to present arguments on behalf of the appellant. In an opinion by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims “that equitable tolling was not appropriate and, thus, that Appellants’ petition was not timely filed under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(2).” This is our opinion summary.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 13 panels to consider 65 cases. Of these 65 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 46. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

As we’ve been highlighting, four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a judge in the District of Colorado to grant a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Amarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. In this patent case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a judge in the District of Delaware to grant Hikma’s motion to dismiss Amarin’s inducement claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. This is our argument preview.

Four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative for summary judgment, in a government contract case. This is our argument preview.

Here is an 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 four new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a patent case, a takings case, a veterans case, and a Little Tucker Act case. Additionally, we highlight two new reply briefs filed in patent cases. Here are the details.

As we reported yesterday, five cases being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Frantzis v. McDonough. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of Veteran Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a Board hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. This is our argument preview.

This week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in In re Chestek PLLC, a trademark case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of Chestek’s trademark application based on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. In an opinion by Judge Lourie joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit upheld the rejection of Chestek’s trademark application. In particular, the court found the “USPTO’s decision to require the address provided by all applicants to be a domicile address was . . . not arbitrary or capricious for failure to provide a reasoned justification.” This is our summary of the opinion.

Here is an 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 four new cases that attracted amicus briefs: three patent cases and a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Merit System Protection Board. Additionally, we identified a new amicus brief filed in a patent case and highlight recent oral arguments in another patent case. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case we are following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the District of Delaware ruling on patent infringement and invalidity claims. The district court held that, if approved, Norwich’s Abbreviated New Drug Application would induce infringement of certain Salix patent claims (the “HE,” “IBS-D,” and “Polymorph” claims). Additionally, the court held that, while Salix’s HE claims are nonobvious and therefore not invalid, the asserted Polymorph and IBS-D claims are invalid as obvious. Both parties appealed the district court’s judgment. This is our argument recap.