FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a takings case and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• New Suits Against Amazon Barred Under Claim Preclusion – Relying on a 1907 decision, the Federal Circuit bars suits against Amazon’s customers.
• Supreme Court Will Not Hear Eli Lilly Patent Appeal – This week, the Supreme Court denied two petitions both relating to a chemotherapy treatment for lung cancer.
• Federal Circuit Upholds Dumping Duties – Chinese solar cell companies were kept accountable for dumping thanks to a recent Federal Circuit ruling.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential orders: one granting two petitions to appeal an interlocutory order certified by the Court of Federal Claims; one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to order a district court to transfer a case; and one denying a petition for a writ of prohibition against the Court of Federal Claims. Here is text from the orders.

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

• The Supreme Court received six new petitions this week in (1) BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., (2) Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., (3) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank., (4) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al., (5) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and (6) Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
• In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast submitted its reply to the ITC’s brief in opposition.
• Finally, the State of Indiana submitted identical amicus briefs in favor of the petitioners in both Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in three cases raising questions related to standing, obviousness, and eligibility; a new invitation for a response in a case raising questions related to obviousness; two new amicus briefs in cases raising questions related to claim construction, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; and the denial of seven petitions raising questions related to claim construction, eligibility, novelty, non-obviousness, and the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus related to a motion to transfer. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the order.

• Patent Lawsuits on the Rise – Even with the disruption due to the coronavirus, patent lawsuits are up 9% year-over-year.
• Google and Sonos at odds over Wireless Speakers Fight – Google countersued Sonos over an alleged patent infringement in an escalating legal battle between the two companies.
• Federal Circuit finds no infringement in an Interactive Guitar Game– The court in Ubisoft Entertainment, S.A. v. Yousician Oy, affirmed the dismissal of Yousician’s claims of infringement because the claimed invention was improperly directed to an abstract idea.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in government contracts cases, one precedential opinion in a trade case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued six nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgments.

This month the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in two related cases that attracted amicus briefs, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Alkem Laboratories Limited. In these cases, the court confronted breach of contract and patent infringement claims against two different alleged infringers–Mylan and Alkem. As we noted in our argument preview, Takeda argues that Section 1.2(d) of license agreements with the accused infringers does not allow for the production of generic versions of Takeda’s patented product at this time. Mylan and Alkem, along with the district court, disagree. The Federal Circuit consolidated the cases for argument purposes only, and the parties presented their arguments to a panel including Chief Judge Prost and Judges Newman and Hughes. This is our argument recap.