Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights a Vietnam veteran’s attempt to collect legal fees related to Agent Orange benefits, a rare free speech ruling by the Federal Circuit in a patent case, and a recent petition by Comcast to the Supreme Court.
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Highlights include the reply brief on the merits in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., four new petitions (two in patent cases and two in veterans cases), two responses to petitions (both related to patent eligibility), three reply briefs in support of petitions (in one patent case and two veterans cases), and supplemental briefs and a letter to the court in five cases as a result of the government’s amicus briefs related to patent eligibility in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. and HP Inc. v. Berkheimer. Here are the details.
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights news regarding a recent decision by the Federal Circuit in a veterans case related to Agent Orange exposure, today’s oral argument at the Supreme Court in three cases decided by the Federal Cirxuit, the Solicitor General’s recent amicus briefs suggesting the Supreme Court should wait to review a case concerning patent eligibility law, and a summary of Converse’s efforts to protect its Chuck Taylor shoe from alleged copyists.
The Federal Circuit issued four opinions today. It issued precedential opinions in a patent case and a veterans case, and nonprecedential opinions in another veterans case and a personnel case.
Notably, the patent case is TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, a case we have been watching because it attracted a significant number of amicus briefs, as discussed previously on this blog. In short, in that case the Federal Circuit agreed with Ericsson that the district court should have held a jury trial on the appropriate “release payment” owed Ericsson for a license to Ericsson’s portfolio of standard-essential patents. By resolving the case in this manner, the court found no need to address the various issues raised in the amicus briefs about the proper calculation of payments for licenses to standard-essential patents.
Here are the introductions to the opinions.