Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, since our last update the Court has not granted certiorari in any cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Three new petitions, however, have been filed with the Supreme Court: two in patent cases and one in a pro se case. Moreover, nine amicus briefs across three cases have been filed. Additionally, four waivers of right to respond, two briefs in opposition, and three replies have been filed. Here are the details.
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last report, however, ten new petitions have been filed in patent, government contract, veterans, and pro se cases; briefs in opposition have been filed in three patent and veterans cases; replies in support of petitions have been filed in three patent cases; the Court requested a response to a petition in a patent case; and the Court denied petitions in three patent, trademark, and pro se cases. Here are the details.
CAFC Denies Amgen Petition to Reconsider Enablement Test for Biotech Patents – In an article on IPWatchDog, Logan Murr reports on the Federal Circuit’s denial of an en banc petition raising questions related to enablement filed by filed by Amgen Inc. in their case against Sanofi, Aventisub LLC.
AWS Urges Supreme Court to Reject Oracle JEDI Review Petition – John Hewitt Jones writes for FedScoop.com about how “Amazon Web Services has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to reject an earlier petition by Oracle to renew its challenge to the Pentagon’s $10 billion Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract.”
Federal Circuit Affirms Board Decision on Pandemic-Related Claim – On GovernmentContractsLegalForum.com, Steve McBrady, Charles Baek, Michelle Coleman, Rob Sneckenberg, John Nakoneczny, and Catherine Shames explain how the Federal Circuit “recently affirmed the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals’ (CBCA) decision denying a pandemic-related claim in Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Secretary of State.”
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Cost Sharing Reduction Case – Susan Morse comments on HealthCareFinanceNews.com about how the Supreme Court will not hear a case decided by the Federal Circuit “regarding unpaid cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers.”
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a nonprecedential order denying a petition for patent and en banc rehearing in a patent infringement case, along with a nonprecedential opinion by Judges Lourie, Prost, and Hughes concerning the denial of panel rehearing and the argument their panel decision changed the law of enablement; and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the summary afirmances.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. It was a busy week at the Federal Circuit. The court received two new petitions in cases addressing issues of enablement, eligibility, and personal jurisdiction. Additionally, the court invited responses in three cases addressing termination of inter partes review proceedings, evaluation of expert opinions on summary judgment, and competitor standing. The court also received a response to a petition raising a question related to enablement. Lastly, the court issued two new denials, one in a case concerning 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and another in a pro se case. Here are the details.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. While there were no recent petitions, responses to petitions, or denials of petitions, the court did receive several amicus briefs. One amicus brief came in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., a case concerning the panel’s decision to deny competitor standing in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Three came in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, where the petition raised questions related to “the panel’s new enablement test for genus claims with functional limitations” and whether that test is consistent with Supreme Court precedent on point. Here are the details.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received and invited a response to a new petition raising questions related to enablement. The court also denied three petitions raising questions related definiteness, intervening rights, willfulness, unclean hands, claim construction, and the doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.
Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases attracted at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight two dispositions, one in a veterans case addressing allegations of delay violating due process and one in a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. We also highlight two new patent cases, one addressing claim construction and the non-obviousness requirement and the other addressing the first-to-file rule and patent eligibility. We also note three upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. Judge Lourie authored the unanimous opinion, which affirmed a district court’s judgment as a matter of law of lack of enablement. The Federal Circuit agreed that undue experimentation would be required to practice the full scope of antibody claims in Amgen’s patents. This is our opinion summary.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one precedential order granting a motion to substitute a successor-in-interest in a design patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.