FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed raising questions related to injunctive relief related to generic drugs and appellate procedure, new waivers of the right to respond were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, and one new reply in support of a petition was filed in a patent case raising questions regarding inter partes review. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions about claim construction, summary judgment, and eligibility and two denials of petitions raising questions related to unclean hands and ANDA litigation. Here are the details.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment by the District of Delaware, which held that Norwich infringed certain patent claims but that other claims were invalid for obviousness. After Norwich amended its Abbreviated New Drug Application to remove the infringing indication, Norwich sought to modify the judgment, contending the amendment negated any possible infringement. The district court, however, denied its motion. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judge Chen, affirmed the judgment of the district court. Judge Cunningham, however, filed a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary.

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 new opinions and dispositions in a Little Tucker Act case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a takings case, and a patent case. We also highlight three new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a patent case, a trademark case, and a veterans case. We also highlight new briefing in four patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a patent case and government contract case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new opinion in an en banc case addressing design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement; seven new petitions raising questions related to nonobviousness, claim construction, infringement, appellate review, and damages; and three denials of petitions raising questions related to definiteness, claim construction, infringement, licenses, and reduction to practice. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which attracted two amicus briefs, addresses an appeal from a final judgment of a district court holding certain patent claims invalid as obvious. Judge Cunningham filed an opinion dissenting in part. One of the nonprecedential opinions affirms four final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, determining all claims are unpatentable over asserted prior art. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protections Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders transfer appeals to other United States appellate courts. Four of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer orders, and links to the dismissals.

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.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case we are following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the District of Delaware ruling on patent infringement and invalidity claims. The district court held that, if approved, Norwich’s Abbreviated New Drug Application would induce infringement of certain Salix patent claims (the “HE,” “IBS-D,” and “Polymorph” claims). Additionally, the court held that, while Salix’s HE claims are nonobvious and therefore not invalid, the asserted Polymorph and IBS-D claims are invalid as obvious. Both parties appealed the district court’s judgment. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene nine panels to consider 46 cases. Of these 46 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 34. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the District of Delaware ruling on patent infringement and invalidity claims. The district court held that, if approved, Norwich’s Abbreviated New Drug Application would induce infringement of certain Salix patent claims (the “HE,” “IBS-D,” and “Polymorph” claims). Additionally, the court held that, while Salix’s HE claims are nonobvious and therefore not invalid, the asserted Polymorph and IBS-D claims are invalid as obvious. Both parties appealed the district court’s judgment. This is our argument preview.