FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 one new opinion in a case raising a question related to se advertising counterclaims under the Lanham Act; two new cases, one a takings case and another a patent case; and new briefing in a case raising questions related to whether a district court erred in denying a motion to intervene and to unseal court records. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion yesterday in Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., a Lanham Act case that we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for Crocs against Dawgs’ counterclaim alleging false advertising violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Crocs based on Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent it interpreted as legally barring Dawgs’ counterclaim. The Federal Circuit, however, reversed and remanded the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Reyna that was joined by Judge Cunningham and Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas, who sat by designation. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a patent case decided by the District of Colorado. Notably, the Federal Circuit held “that a cause of action arises” under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act “where a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product.” The three orders are all dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article expressing the opinion that the Federal Circuit’s effort to clarify design patent law in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC “utterly failed”; and
• an article suggesting a Federal Circuit case is “set to shape false advertising law.”

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve 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 three opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: an Equal Pay Act case, a vaccine case, and a veterans case. Additionally, we highlight two new patent cases, new briefing in two patent cases, and oral arguments in nine cases last and this month. Here are the details.

As we have been reporting, earlier this month the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., in which the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a judge in the District of Colorado to grant Crocs’ motion for summary judgment on a Lanham Act claim. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 13 panels to consider 65 cases. Of these 65 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 46. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

As we’ve been highlighting, four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a judge in the District of Colorado to grant a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case affirming the Court of International Trade’s determination of duty-free treatment of the active ingredient in a medication for the treatment of the human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”), a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming a dismissal for lack of eligibility, a nonprecedential order unsealing the trade opinion, and an erratum. Here are are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a modified precedential order granting a motion to substitute a successor-in-interest in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination of a design patent. Compared to the original order, the modified order differs primarily in that Judge Dyk modified parts of the original order and Judge O’Malley now dissents from the grant of the motion. Here is the introduction to the modified order and the text of Judge O’Malley’s dissent.