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 patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight one disposition, one new case, two recent oral arguments, and one upcoming oral argument.

This month the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in two related cases that attracted amicus briefs, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Alkem Laboratories Limited. In these cases, the court confronted breach of contract and patent infringement claims against two different alleged infringers–Mylan and Alkem. As we noted in our argument preview, Takeda argues that Section 1.2(d) of license agreements with the accused infringers does not allow for the production of generic versions of Takeda’s patented product at this time. Mylan and Alkem, along with the district court, disagree. The Federal Circuit consolidated the cases for argument purposes only, and the parties presented their arguments to a panel including Chief Judge Prost and Judges Newman and Hughes. This is our argument recap.

This week and next Monday the Federal Circuit will convene 14 panels to consider about 67 cases. This month, like last month, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, the court will hear fewer oral arguments than normal, with only about 35 cases being argued this month. Of the argued cases, only two related cases attracted amicus briefs.

Two cases that attracted amicus briefs are being argued on Monday, June 8. The cases are related. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A brought separate breach of contract and patent infringement claims against two different alleged infringers, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Alkem Laboratories Limited. In both cases, Takeda appeals the district court’s denial of its motions for preliminary injunctions. Takeda argues that license agreements between Takeda and the accused infringers do not allow for the production of generic versions of Takeda’s patented product at this time. Here is our argument preview.

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 patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions, one new case, three recent oral arguments, and two upcoming oral arguments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a trademark case, and one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, two nonprecedential opinions in Merit System Protection Board cases, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

About once a month we provide an update on activity in patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. There we also highlight non-patent cases that attract amicus briefs, but only once those cases have been scheduled for oral argument. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight three dispositions, four recent oral arguments, and one upcoming oral argument.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include one new petition related to obviousness, one response to a petition related to design patents, two requests for responses to petitions related to Arthrex and transfer, two amicus briefs in support of petitions related to the written description and enablement requirements, and the denial of one petition related to Arthrex and obviousness. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions related to waiver of the prevailing arguments made in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., non-obviousness, and argument-type prosecution history estoppel, two letters filed by the government in response to arguments related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two amicus briefs in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. itself, and the denial of four petitions. We have the details.