FedCircuitBlog

• 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This morning the Federal Circuit issued two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential.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 In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating patent claims as obvious in an ex parte reexamination proceeding.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.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders today given the extended Thanksgiving holiday noted in the court’s recent notice and order.

Happy Thanksgiving! The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders this morning given the federal holiday.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court in Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc. raising questions related to the Appointments Clause.
• One brief in opposition to the petition in Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. was filed with the Court by Minerva.
• Two reply briefs were filed with the Court, the first by Minerva in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., and the second by Cochlear in Cochlear Corp. v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research.
• Finally, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in two cases: (1) Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc. and (2) Wilkins v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. It has been a quiet week. In pending en banc cases, this week’s update is a citation to supplemental authority in a veterans case along with the government’s response. In cases with pending petitions for en banc rehearing, this week’s update is a correction to a precedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued six opinions and orders:

• a precedential opinion in a patent case affirming a holding of obviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
• a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case affirming a holding of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
• a nonprecedential opinion in a third patent case affirming a district court’s dismissal due to ineligibility, and
• three nonprecedential orders denying or dismissing petitions for writs of mandamus.

Here are the introductions to the opinions and excerpts from the orders.

• Printed Matter Is Patentable If It’s Functional, Not Just Communicative – Bard’s suit of patent infringement by AngioDynamics may continue after the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s finding of non-infringement and invalidity.
• Functional claiming in the aftermath of Williamson – Analyses of means plus function limitations have shifted more than anticipated in the past few years following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC.
• Federal Circuit Considers CBM Review Under Thryv on Remand from SCOTUS – The Federal Circuit affirmed in SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric that the decision to institute a covered business method (“CBM”) review cannot be reviewed based on Supreme Court precedent.

Here’s the latest.