FedCircuitBlog

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.

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second case is New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. LNW Gaming, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review two judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method review proceedings. New Vision contends the overall structure for instituting and funding post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act “creates impermissible incentives for the PTAB, its leadership, and the individual administrative patent judges.” These incentives, New Vision argues, violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. New Vision also argues the “petitions should have been denied pursuant to the contractual obligation that all disputes over the [relevant] agreement are to be resolved in a Nevada court.” 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 new briefing in a patent case and recent oral arguments in a trademark case, a veterans case, and a takings case. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Beaudette v. McDonough. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to hear appeals of adverse decisions pertaining to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. Judges Moore, Dyk, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.