FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. It has been a quiet week. A new petition was filed in a case raising questions related to inter partes review and remedies, and a response was filed to a patent petition raising questions related to eligible subject matter and deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See the details of these cases below.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four precedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and one involving an appeal of a district court’s order transferring a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Also, late yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case granting a petition for a writ of mandamus and ordering a district court within 30 days to issue a ruling on a motion to transfer. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

• U.S. v. Arthrex: Is Historical Practice of the USPTO Relevant? – One factor that the Supreme Court may consider in determining the appropriate remedy if necessary for the appointment of administrative patent judges is the historical practice of the USPTO.
• Apple Faces Dubious Federal Circuit on Patent Ownership Argument – Judges Chen and Linn of the Federal Circuit seemed to doubt the interpretation of the contract language that Apple is relying on to challenge Omni MedSci’s ownership of the allegedly infringed patents.
• Federal Circuit on TM Licensing: We’re Going to Enforce the Terms – The Federal Circuit held that the Army properly refused Authentic Apparel’s proposal to make certain Army-branded items, including the expansion of a clothing line featuring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.

Here’s the latest.

As we have been reporting, the Federal Circuit this month scheduled three oral arguments in cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the court heard argument Thursday regarding two different district courts’ holdings with respect to an alleged standing problem related to the plaintiff, Omni Medsci. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an alleged government contract case and a nonprecedential information in a patent case. The court also issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

One of the three cases scheduled to be argued last week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs was a death benefit case entitled Rolfingsmeyer v. Office of Personnel Management. Normally at this point we would provide a recap of the oral argument, but last week the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order “remov[ing] this case from the March 5, 2021 oral argument calendar and [holding] the case in abeyance for 60 days.” Here is the full text of the court’s order.

• Now Streaming On YouTube: The Federal Circuit – The Federal Circuit will begin livestreaming the audio feed of oral arguments on YouTube starting in March.
• Make It Pithy and Other Lawyer Tips From a Federal Circuit Judge – Judge Raymond Chen of the Federal Circuit spoke on Friday at the 17th Annual Symposium on Emerging Intellectual Property Issues providing his prospective and tips to lawyers in the field.

Here’s the latest.

This week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Euzebio v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. Judge Wallach authored a unanimous panel opinion reversing and remanding a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that certain materials were not constructively before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for an interlocutory appeal. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

As we previously reported, the Federal Circuit recently conducted a panel rehearing in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In this case, Teva petitioned the en banc court to reconsider the panel’s decision that Teva induced infringement through use of a skinny label on its generic version of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) drug Coreg. Teva pointed to Hatch-Waxman and asserted that Congress provided a statutory “carve-out” mechanism allowing a generic to adopt a skinny label for unpatented uses that cannot be blocked by a patent on one method of using the drug. The panel treated the motion as requesting panel rehearing and granted panel rehearing. This is our recap of the rehearing oral argument.