FedCircuitBlog

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, a case addressing whether a patent owner has the right under the patent statute to appeal a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a petition for inter partes review was not filed after a statutory deadline. In short, while Justice Gorsuch appeared to agree with the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that patent owners have that right, several other Justices, and particularly Justice Kagan, seemed to harbor significant doubt that Congress had not eliminated the ability to appeal in this circumstance.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights news regarding a recent decision by the Federal Circuit in a veterans case related to Agent Orange exposure, today’s oral argument at the Supreme Court in three cases decided by the Federal Cirxuit, the Solicitor General’s recent amicus briefs suggesting the Supreme Court should wait to review a case concerning patent eligibility law, and a summary of Converse’s efforts to protect its Chuck Taylor shoe from alleged copyists.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions (all addressing lack of jurisdiction and standing) and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On Friday the Solicitor General filed amicus briefs requested by the Supreme Court in two patent cases, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. and HP Inc. v. Berkheimer. In both cases, the Solicitor General recommended that the Court deny review. A closer examination of the briefs, however, shows the Solicitor General supporting a reexamination of substantive, if not not procedural, patent eligibility law, at least as expressed by the Supreme Court since Bilski v. Kappos in 2010, and in particular in the currently-pending case Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC.

The Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument tomorrow in three cases challenging the Federal Circuit’s holding that various health insurance companies cannot obtain damages under the Tucker Act for subsidies that were identified in the Affordable Care Act but that Congress later declined to appropriate. The three cases are Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United States.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a government contract case and a veterans case. The court also issued five Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Does the patent statute permit patent owners to appeal decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board that petitions for inter partes review were not filed late? Or, under the statute, are these decisions simply unreviewable? The Supreme Court will tackle these questions on Monday, when it will hear argument in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights recent news about the government’s plan to seek en banc review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex, the government’s lack of filing an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in Athena v. Mayo, and the Federal Circuit’s recent denial of en banc rehearing in Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company.

The Federal Circuit issued four opinions today. It issued precedential opinions in a patent case and a veterans case, and nonprecedential opinions in another veterans case and a personnel case.

Notably, the patent case is TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, a case we have been watching because it attracted a significant number of amicus briefs, as discussed previously on this blog. In short, in that case the Federal Circuit agreed with Ericsson that the district court should have held a jury trial on the appropriate “release payment” owed Ericsson for a license to Ericsson’s portfolio of standard-essential patents. By resolving the case in this manner, the court found no need to address the various issues raised in the amicus briefs about the proper calculation of payments for licenses to standard-essential patents.

Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In granted cases, various briefs were filed in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. and Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP. In addition, one new pro se petition was filed, along with two new amicus briefs in other cases. Here are the details.