Yesterday the Supreme Court granted the petitions for certiorari in three related Arthrex cases: (1) United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (19-1434), (2) Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. (19-1452), and (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (19-1458). The Court decided to consolidate the cases for briefing and oral argument and announced that all future filings and activity will be reflected on docket of No. 19-1434. The Court’s widely anticipated review will determine the fate of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) under the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential opinion denying permission for an interlocutory appeal. The Federal Circuit also issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court heard oral argument in a veterans case last week. As for petitions for en banc consideration in patent cases, a new petition was filed in a case raising questions related to literal infringement and claim construction; the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to sanctions; and the court denied two petitions, one in a pro se case and one raising a question related to non-obviousness. Here are the details.
- SCOTUS Denial of TCL v. Ericsson Petition Means Juries Decide Damages for SEP Infringement – The Supreme Court declined to review a Federal Circuit decision requiring jury trials for the determination of damages for past infringing activities.
- Full Federal Circuit Grapples With Right to Review VA Manual – The Federal Circuit’s first telephonic oral argument for an en banc rehearing of a case was held last Thursday.
Here’s the latest.
Last week, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In this case, the court considered two questions posed by NOVA in its petition: (1) whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review a generally applicable interpretive rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs through its Adjudication Procedures Manual, and (2) whether a Federal Circuit Rule impermissibly supersedes a statute of limitations. Additionally, as a preliminary matter, the court heard argument as to whether NOVA has Article III standing in this case. This is our argument recap.
Earlier this week, on October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the long-running software copyright case. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this extended oral argument took place over the phone and lasted for over 90 minutes. The Court worked to great lengths to untangle the attorneys’ many vital arguments that have developed over the past decade. As we previewed the day before the argument, the issues, in this case, are the availability of copyright protection for software interfaces, in particular Oracle’s Java SE declarations, and Google’s copying of such code that it contends is fair use.
- Supreme Court Hears Copyright Battle Between Google and Oracle – The historic and multibillion-dollar copyright suit made its way to the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
- Fed. Circ. Orders Redo In ‘Extremely Frustrating’ Patent Case – The Federal Circuit states that fundamental questions need to be resolved before the court can make a decision regarding a patent claim construction fight.
- Rently Makes Section 101 Bid to High Court – Just as the Supreme Court kicked off its new term by denying to review a Section 101 eligibility decision, Rently urges the High Court to review its case.
Here’s the latest.