FedCircuitBlog

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases attracted 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 dispositions, one in a veterans case addressing allegations of delay violating due process and one in a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. We also highlight two new patent cases, one addressing claim construction and the non-obviousness requirement and the other addressing the first-to-file rule and patent eligibility. We also note three upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. Judge Lourie authored the unanimous opinion, which affirmed a district court’s judgment as a matter of law of lack of enablement. The Federal Circuit agreed that undue experimentation would be required to practice the full scope of antibody claims in Amgen’s patents. This is our opinion summary.

This week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Monk v. Tran, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Chen authored a unanimous panel opinion affirming in part a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and dismissing in part the appeal as moot. Specifically, the Federal Circuit agreed that a petition for a writ of mandamus filed at the Veterans Court was moot with respect to several veterans because, after the filing the petition but before the Veterans Court’s disposition of the petition, those veterans received decisions by the Board of Veterans Appeals. The Federal Circuit similarly dismissed as moot another veteran’s appeal because, by the time of the Federal Circuit’s disposition of his appeal, he had received a Board decision on the merits of his case. This is our opinion summary.

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 two dispositions, one new patent case, and new briefing in another patent case. Here are the details.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit decided Veterans4You, Inc. v. United States, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Clevenger authored a unanimous panel opinion reversing the Court of Federal Claim’s conclusion that the “printing mandate” of 44 U.S.C. § 501 applied to a solicitation at issue in the case and obligated Veterans Affairs to route the solicitation through Government Publishing Office. The Federal Circuit agreed with Veterans4You’s argument that, instead, § 501 applies only to the production of written or graphic published materials. According to the Federal Circuit, because the solicited goods at issue in this case did not fall within this category of materials, they do not fall within the printing mandate. This is our opinion summary.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. Here’s what you need to know. The court will convene 15 panels to consider about 62 cases. Of these 62 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 26. Notably, none of these argued cases attracted amicus briefs. Finally, this month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic.

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 a disposition in a takings case, a patent case attracting an amicus brief on the issue of the non-obviousness requirement, new briefing in a patent case challenging post-grant review proceedings as violating due process, and four recent oral arguments in cases raising questions related to patent, takings, and veterans law. Here are the details.

As we have been reporting, last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of the patent cases, MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, former owners of bump-fire type rifle stocks assert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed a taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of them was a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.” This is our argument recap.