FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the order.

• Full Federal Circuit Won’t Revisit Dana-Farber Win on Named Inventors – The Federal Circuit refused to rehear a case en banc involving the addition of inventors to a pharmaceutical patent.
• CAFC Affirms District Court Dismissal of Declaratory Judgment Under Doctrine of ‘Abstention’ – The Doctrine of ‘Abstention’ guided the Federal Circuit’s decision in Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Sasso to affirm the lower court’s ruling to dismiss a claim for declaratory judgment.
• Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in Light of the Specification – Snyders Heart Valve can continue its infringement claims against St. Jude’s Medical after a recent decision by the Federal Circuit.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit and the Court of Federal Claims issued a joint order extending limitations on access to the Federal Courts Building until November 22, 2020. The Federal Circuit also issued a notice with additional information related to the order. Here is the text from the court’s announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus, and three Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion, the text from the orders, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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 three dispositions in patent cases addressing estoppel related to inter partes review, anticipation, and induced infringement; new briefing in another patent case related to standing; one recent oral argument in a patent case addressing personal jurisdiction; and four upcoming oral arguments in veterans and government contracts cases.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders this morning.

• Fed. Circ. Backs Sanofi, Regeneron PTAB Win Over Amgen – In a precedential opinion issued on Tuesday, the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating Amgen’s patent aimed at treating inflammatory disorders.
• Patent Reviews in ‘Limbo’ As Supreme Court Takes Case on Judges – The U.S. Supreme Court recently announced that it will review the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc.
• Fed. Circ. Denies Appeal of Order Backing Card IP Under Alice – On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit rejected an interlocutory appeal after a district court found that a patent describing a card that can be used as a debit card, a loyalty card, and a gift card all at once was not directed to an abstract idea.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a trade case, one precedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• The Supreme Court granted certiorari in three related Arthrex cases.
• The following two new petitions for writ of certiorari were submitted to the Supreme Court: (1) Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc. and (2) Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• Donuts, Inc. filed its brief in opposition with the Court in Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc.
• One waiver of right to respond to the petition in Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. was filed with the Court by Gilead Sciences.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 18 different petitions this week.

Here are the details.

Yesterday the Supreme Court granted the petitions for certiorari in three related Arthrex cases: (1) United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (19-1434), (2) Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. (19-1452), and (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (19-1458). The Court decided to consolidate the cases for briefing and oral argument and announced that all future filings and activity will be reflected on docket of No. 19-1434. The Court’s widely anticipated review will determine the fate of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) under the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.