FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: two involving appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one in a patent infringement case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• The Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Mantissa Corp. v. Ondot Systems, Inc., (2) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and (3) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.
• Three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Actavis in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., the second by CBS in Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., and the third by Biomarin in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 19 different petitions this week.

Here are the details.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Trimble, the plaintiff-appellant, asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s dismissal of its declaratory judgment action. Trimble argues that the district court wrongly determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant-patent owner, PerDiemCo. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and four nonprecedential opinions in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a case concerning jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, a veterans case, and a patent case. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. This week the en banc court will hear arguments in a veterans case. Late last week a supplemental reply brief was filed in that case. As for new petitions for en banc consideration, two were filed in patent cases raising various questions related to the doctrine of equivalents, prosecution history estoppel, vitiation, reasonable royalties, and obviousness. With respect previously-filed petitions, a new response was filed asking the court to reject a petition questioning whether whether a party who is not a patentee may sue for patent infringement. In addition, the court denied four petitions in patent cases raising questions related to mandamus jurisdiction over real-party-in-interest determinations, double patenting, transfer of venue, and claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the link to the Rule 36 judgment.

On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from the attorneys for two leading technology giants in the long-running software copyright case, Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. At issue is the availability of copyright protection for software interfaces, in particular Oracle’s Java SE declarations, and Google’s copying of such code that it contends is fair use.

• Showdown Looms on Cost Accounting Standards – Boeing can challenge a Federal Acquisition Regulation provision regarding Cost Accounting Standards thanks to a recent Federal Circuit decision.
• A $75 Million Drug Sale Lands Teva a $235 Million Penalty – The Federal Circuit awarded $235 million to Glaxosmithkline for Teva’s sale of a generic version of a Glaxosmithkline heart medicine.

Here’s the latest.

On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a case we have been tracking because it attracted three amicus briefs. Judge Newman authored the majority opinion, which Judge Moore joined. Judges Newman and Moore vacated a district court’s judgment as a matter of law and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate a jury verdict of induced infringement in favor of GlaxoSMithKline based on indications of use in labels applied by Teva, a generic drug manufacturer. Chief Judge Prost filed a thirty-three page dissenting opinion, taking the majority to task for “creating infringement liability for any generic entering the market with a [so-called] skinny label, and by permitting infringement liability for a broader label that itself did not actually cause any direct infringement.” Here is a summary of the majority and dissenting opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here is the introduction of the opinion.