FedCircuitBlog

Five cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case. In this case, Arendi appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. This is our argument preview.

Two weeks ago, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB affirmed an administrative judge’s decision that a statutory provision requires the Office of Personnel Management “to divide an annuity supplement only if expressly provided for in a court order.” Judge Prost authored an opinion for the Federal Circuit affirming the judgment. In particular, the court held “that OPM cannot divide a retiree’s annuity supplement unless the division of the supplement is expressly provided for in a court order.” This is our opinion summary.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., raises questions relating to eligibility of a genetically engineered cultured host cell that contains nucleic acid sequences from at least two different organisms spliced together into a single molecule. This case asks whether a district court erred in holding patent claims ineligible because the inventors merely “combined natural products and put them in a host cell.” Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., raises several questions, most prominently questions concerning patent infringement and the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Judges Prost, Cunningham, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in HMTX Industries LLC v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Court of International Trade. That court held that certain actions of the U.S. Trade Representative did not exceed statutory authority and satisfied requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Hughes authored an opinion for the Federal Circuit affirming the judgment of the Court of International Trade. This is our opinion summary.

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 a new opinion in a patent infringement case, a recent oral argument in a case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a new response and reply brief filed in a patent case, and two new patent cases that attracted amicus briefs. Here are the details.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted five amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Northern District of California holding several patent claims invalid and two patents unenforceable based on prosecution laches. The panel, consisting of Federal Circuit Judges Lourie and Prost and District of New Jersey Chief Judge Renée Bumb, reversed in part and affirmed in part. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, raises a question relating to apportionment of federal employee retirement annuity supplements pursuant to court orders, for example, as a result of divorce decrees. This case asks whether the Merit Systems Protection Board misinterpreted 5 U.S.C. § 8421(c) by concluding that the Office of Personnel Management cannot divide annuity supplements at all, unless their division is expressly provided for in a court order. Judges Prost, Wallach, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion 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 reviewed a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents are not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. The panel, consisting of Judges Dyk, Chen, and Hughes, affirmed the jury’s verdict as to one of the patents, reversed the districts court’s JMOL that two of the asserted patents were not invalid, vacated the damages award, and remanded the case for a new trial on the validity of two of the asserted patents and damages for all three patents. This is our opinion summary.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dinh v. United States, a case we have been monitoring because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. The Court of Federal Claims held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. The Federal Circuit, in a panel opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas), affirmed. This is our opinion summary.