FedCircuitBlog

Here is this month’s 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 an opinion in a patent case reviewing determinations by the International Trade Commission of patent ineligibility and no lack of enablement; three oral argument recaps in a patent case concerning patent term extension reissued patents, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a government contract case; and a new patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 15 panels to consider 71 cases. Of the 71 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 56 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

As we highlighted yesterday, three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. This is our argument preview.

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.

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 four new cases that attracted amicus briefs: three patent cases and a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Merit System Protection Board. Additionally, we identified a new amicus brief filed in a patent case and highlight recent oral arguments in another patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion and a nonprecedential opinion in two cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released five nonprecedential orders, which included three summary affirmances and two dismissals. Here are the introductions of the opinion and links to the orders.

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

• an article about “[r]ival drugmakers Viatris and Merck . . . settl[ing] their yearslong dispute over patents on brand name diabetes treatments”;
• another article about a petition to the Supreme Court asking “the high court to review an appeals court’s decision that patents can only be issued to human inventors”; and
• a blog post about another Supreme Court petition “ask[ing] the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Ingenio was estopped from challenging the validity of patent claims that were denied institution during inter partes review (IPR) validity proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied three petitions raising questions related to attorney-client privilege, anticipation, and the standard for establishing venue. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two responses to petitions raising questions related to anticipation and the standard for establishing venue. Here are the details.