FedCircuitBlog

Two cases that attracted amicus briefs are being argued on Monday, June 8. The cases are related. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A brought separate breach of contract and patent infringement claims against two different alleged infringers, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Alkem Laboratories Limited. In both cases, Takeda appeals the district court’s denial of its motions for preliminary injunctions. Takeda argues that license agreements between Takeda and the accused infringers do not allow for the production of generic versions of Takeda’s patented product at this time. Here is our argument preview.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued a Notice Concerning the Conducting and Scheduling of Oral Argument. In it, the court announced that it has suspended all in-person arguments until further notice. In addition, the court announced that cases set for argument after the June 2020 session will be argued telephonically unless otherwise notified by a separate order that oral argument is unnecessary. The court also issued an order on point.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the text of the erratum.

• Federal Circuit Suspends In-Person Oral Arguments – The Federal Circuit indefinitely suspended in-person oral arguments amidst COVID-19 pandemic.
• Biotech Trade Organization Urges the Federal Circuit to End Obviousness Test – in its amicus brief, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization asks the Federal Circuit to end its “unrealistic” approach to evaluating obviousness.
• Federal Circuit Denies Review for Real-Parties-in-Interest Arguments – The Federal Circuit uses Supreme Court precedent to declare PTAB decisions regarding the real-parties-in-interest non-appealable.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a tax case and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• The Chamberlain Group filed a new petition in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., et al.
• In Baley v. United States, the United States and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations both filed briefs in opposition.
• In Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Celgene Corp. submitted its reply to the petition of certiorari.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the text of the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in five cases raising questions related to claim construction, the Appointments Clause, and obviousness; an invitation for a response in one case raising questions related to inequitable conduct and obviousness; the denial of four petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, venue, damages, and claim construction; and the withdrawal of one petition raising questions related to the Administrative Procedure Act. Here are the details.

This month we highlight two papers exploring research related to the Federal Circuit.

• Re-Thinking the “Motivation to Combine” in Patent Law by Joshua Lee Sohn.
• Ajinomoto v. ITC, the Doctrine of Equivalents, and Biomolecule Claim Limitations at the Federal Circuit by Professor Christopher M. Holman.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one in a patent case and one in a government contracts case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.