FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order vacating a judgment and remanding a case in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case. This morning, the court issued three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. One of the precedential opinions comes in a correction of military records case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; one comes in a copyright case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Of the nonprecedential opinions, ones comes in response to a petition to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Today’s order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and yesterday’s order as well as a link to the dismissal.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a patent case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. In this case, Hikma Pharmaceuticals challenged a Federal Circuit decision addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent infringement. The Federal Circuit had rejected “characterizations that a reversal in this case would ‘effectively eviscerate section viii carve-outs’” of the Hatch-Waxman Act and held that Amarin had “plausibly pleaded that Hikma . . . induced infringement.” In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. This is our summary of the Supreme Court’s opinion.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post reporting how the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a reply brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Judge Newman;
• a blog post highlighting how “a unanimous court rejected the idea that a generics pharmaceutical manufacturer . . . can be held responsible for infringements of patents held by the branded manufacturer . . . based on the decisions of doctors and pharmacies to use the generic compound for patented uses of the drug”;
• a blog post explaining how, when “[c]onfronted with four patents drawn to the same basic invention, the Federal Circuit held one group of claims ineligible and a second group eligible”; and
• a blog post discussing how “more than a dozen patent matters now sit before the [Supreme] Court.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, since our last update the Court issued its decision. As for pending petitions, no new petitions were filed; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; and two reply briefs were filed in patent cases. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. We highlight:

• an article discussing how the Supreme Court’s decision “may make generic drugmakers less vulnerable to patent ‌lawsuits involving so-called ‘skinny labels’”;
• an article similarly reporting how the Supreme Court’s decision “is expected to strengthen legal protections for generic manufacturers that launch products using the Hatch-Waxman Act’s ‘carve-out’ process”;
• a blog post suggesting the Supreme Court’s decision “scolded” the Federal Circuit “for its recent approach” and “has potentially far-reaching implications for the induced infringement standard across sectors”; and
• an article emphasizing that “all nine justices” joined Justice Jackson’s opinion in this “closely watched pharmaceutical patent dispute.”

This morning the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent infringement. The Federal Circuit had rejected “characterizations that a reversal in this case would ‘effectively eviscerate section viii carve-outs’” of the Hatch-Waxman Act and held that Amarin had “plausibly pleaded that Hikma . . . induced infringement.” The Supreme Court disagreed. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson, the Court decided mere plausibility that a physician could read relevant statements “as an instruction or encouragement to” infringe did not rise to the required standard of taking “active steps” to induce patent infringement. Here is the introduction and conclusion of today’s opinion. We plan to post a full opinion summary soon.

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted review to consider the following two questions:

1. “When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a ‘generic version’ and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?”
2. “Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use?”

This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, oral argument took place in late April. As for pending petitions, since our last update, six new petitions were filed; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed; three briefs in opposition were filed; three reply briefs were filed; two amicus briefs were filed; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in five cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, there has been no new activity since our last update. As for pending petitions, since our last update, one new petition was filed in a veterans benefits case; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36; a brief in opposition was filed in a government contracts case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a patent case, a trademark case, and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case–a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling–the petitioner filed its reply brief. As for pending petitions, since our last update two new petitions were filed in an Indian Tucker Act case and a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in a case addressing Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the details.