FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case, one nonprecedential opinion in a trade case, two nonprecedential orders denying writs of mandamus, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the orders, and the text of the erratum.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights an article about the Supreme Court’s rejection of Apple’s petition for certiorari in one of its cases against VirnetX, a comment on the Federal Circuit’s treatment of “consisting essentially of” language in patent claims, and an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s rejection of an en banc petition in a case vacated in light of Arthrex.

This morning the Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions.

The fourth case scheduled to be argued next week that attracting an amicus brief is Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc. A patent case, it drew interest from Samsung Bioepis and the Association for Accessible Medicines, respectively, concerning the issues of obviousness and double patenting. Both amici argue for reversal of the lower court decision in favor of the appellants, Sandoz Inc., Sandoz International GMBH, and Sandoz GMBH. Here is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There is no news to report on granted cases and no new petitions were filed. However, four new reply briefs in support of petitions were filed, and the Supreme Court did deny four previously-filed petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Another case that will be argued next week is Caquelin v. United States, which attracted three amicus briefs. The Federal Circuit will be asked to address two questions related to takings law. First, the court will consider whether the Court of Federal Claims erred in holding that a notice of interim trail use (“NITU”) “amounted to a government-authorized physical occupation of the underlying property for purposes of [a] takings analysis.” Second, the court will consider whether the Court of Federal Claims erred in finding a taking under the “multifactor analysis of Arkansas Game [and Fish Comm’n v. United States].” Here is our preview of the arguments that will be presented to the court.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include five new petitions related to obviousness, Arthrex, alleged appellate fact-finding, and prevailing party determinations; one response to a petition raising arguments related to Arthrex; three amicus briefs in support of a petition concerning design patent infringement; and an order denying a petition related to definiteness with a dissent by four judges. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential order denying en banc rehearing in a patent case, as well as one nonprecedential opinion in another patent case. Both included dissents. Here is the text of the order and the introduction to the opinion along with language from the dissents.

Next week is argument week at the Federal Circuit, and four cases slated to be argued attracted amicus briefs. A patent case, Biogen MA v. EMD Serono, Inc., drew interest from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals on the issue of invalidity of a patent “for the use of recombinant IFN-β ‘polypeptides’ to treat various diseases.” Here is our argument preview.