The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders this morning.
The Federal Circuit released an announcement today concerning two updates. First, the court announced that its Rules of Practice have been updated to reflect amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35 and 40. Second, the court announced increases to various miscellaneous court fees. Here is the text of today’s announcement.
As we reported this morning, earlier today the Federal Circuit decided Albright v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Chief Judge Prost authored today’s unanimous panel opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claim’s conclusion that the federal government did not commit any taking under the Fifth Amendment. In particular, the courts agreed that, when the government converted a particular railroad line into a recreational trail, no taking occurred because at that time the plaintiffs-appellants did not have a property interest in the railroad line. Their predecessors-in-interest, the courts ruled, did not grant easements to the railroad line but, instead, “fee simple absolute title” ownership of the land in question. This is our opinion summary.
- Big Pharma to Face Off at Federal Circuit Oral Arguments Over Antibody Genus Patentability – A preview of an upcoming Federal Circuit case concerning enablement.
- No Patent? No Problem! The Federal Circuit Paves The Way For Non-Patent Owners To Sue Infringers – What happens in a patent lawsuit when not all of the parties that have an ownership interest in a patent are joined as plaintiffs?
- The Federal Circuit Tries To Demystify Venue in Hatch-Waxman Actions – In Valeant Pharms. N. Am. v. Mylan Pharms., the Federal Circuit attempted to clarify where “acts of infringement” for venue purposes under §1400(b) occur in Hatch-Waxman actions.
Here’s the latest.
As we reported yesterday, four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second one we will preview is a patent case entitled Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. This case concerns patent law’s enablement requirement with respect to antibody claims. Amgen asserts “the district court erred in holding that any reasonable juror was required to find that Sanofi-Regeneron established non-enablement by clear-and- convincing evidence.” This is our argument preview
This morning the Federal Circuit issued two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of International Trade over a dissent by Judge Reyna. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating patent claims as obvious in an ex parte reexamination proceeding. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States. In this case, 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. In particular, the former owners contend the ATF committed either a physical or regulatory taking by using its legislative authority to require the abandonment or total destruction of bump-fire rifle stocks. The former owners allege they complied with the ATF’s legislative rule requiring abandonment and did not receive just compensation in return. The former owners argue that the decision by the Court of Federal Claims dismissing their action should be reversed. This is our argument preview.