FedCircuitBlog

Next week is argument week at the Federal Circuit, and two cases slated to be argued attracted amicus briefs. A patent case, Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, drew interest from both the Aimed Alliance and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) on the issue of non-obviousness. In this case, Amarin, a patent owner, asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s judgment of obviousness based on alleged erroneous use of hindsight. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in a veterans case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Qualcomm Urges Fed Circuit to Keep PTAB Win Against Apple – Arguing that Apple is now trying to “manufacture a legal issue,” Qualcomm maintains that the PTAB correctly upheld its patent on a touch-screen function that allows users to toggle between multiple windows.
• CAFC Affirms Sanctions Entered Against Overly Litigious Doctors – Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a district court decision in Kahn v. Hemisphere Inc, which involved an action for patent infringement regarding an arteriovenous shunt.
• Government Reliance on Waiver Argument to Keep Price Adjustment Windfall Fails – In articulating limits to the government’s ability to rely on the waiver doctrine to enforce Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) provisions of questionable legality, the Federal Circuit in effect challenges the government’s approach to measuring the impact of cost accounting practices changes.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case.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 Supreme Court received three new petitions for writs of certiorari in (1) ThermoLife International LLC v. Iancu, (2) SRAM, LLC v. FOX Factory, Inc., and (3) Halim v. United States.
• Aquesitive submitted a brief in opposition to the petition in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
• Two replies were submitted to the Court, the first by Smith & Nephew in Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. and the second by TCL in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a Vaccine Act case and a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to patent claim construction and new invitations to respond to petitions in two cases raising questions related to claim preclusion and double patenting. Here are the details.

• Federal Circuit Extends Pandemic-Related Courthouse Closure – Restrictions on public access to the courthouse have been extended due to the pandemic, limiting entry to staff only until September 14.
• Federal Circuit reverses district court finding of patent ineligibility for sex selection technology patents – In XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, the court found that the asserted claims were directed toward a patent-eligible improvement of a method for sorting particles, rather than an abstract idea.
• “Untethered” Obviousness Determination Reversed – the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a PTAB finding of unpatentability because the board did not adequately support its reasoning in Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp.

Here’s the latest.

The Federal Circuit did not issue any new opinions this morning.

On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sanford Health Plan v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. In the opinion, a panel composed of Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Taranto unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims that the Affordable Care Act “provision on reimbursement of cost-sharing reductions is ‘money-mandating’ and that the government is liable for money damages for its failure to make reimbursements for the 2017 reductions.” Here is a summary of the opinion.