Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to patent claim construction and new invitations to respond to petitions in two cases raising questions related to claim preclusion and double patenting. Here are the details.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include modified opinions issued in two patent cases raising questions related to eligibility; new petitions filed in two cases raising questions related to obviousness; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to venue; and the denial of petitions in cases raising questions related to jurisdiction over an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, restriction requirements, and patent term adjustments. Here are the details.
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 five dispositions, two new cases, two cases with new briefing, and one upcoming oral argument. Here are the details.
- U.S. Wrongly Linked 3 Steel Companies In Duty Probe – The U.S. Department of Commerce improperly tied steel companies together in an anti-dumping investigation, said the Federal Circuit.
- All Substantial Rights Deemed Test Informative – With the decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit endorses the “all substantial rights” test for the first time.
- Section 315(a) Calls At Institution Cannot Be Reviewed – Finally, the Federal Circuit applied the recent Supreme Court decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs to a Section 315(a) and (b) case.
Here’s the latest.
Recently the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., a case we have been tracking because it attracted two amicus briefs. In the opinion, Judges O’Malley and Chen affirm the lower court’s ruling that Sandoz failed to prove that the patents-in-suit were invalid. Judge Reyna filed a dissenting opinion. Here is a summary of the opinion and dissent.
- Amgen Defeats Appeal Over Arthritis Drug Patents – Amgen successfully defends its multi-billion-dollar arthritis drug patents in the Federal Circuit on Wednesday.
- Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ax Of Aircraft Space-Saving IP – The Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, invalidated two aircraft patents in B/E Aerospace Inc. v. C&D Zodiac Inc.
- No rehearing for Biogen in Tecfidera patent appeal – Biogen was denied an en banc rehearing of Biogen International GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC, finalizing Banner’s win in the Federal Circuit.
Here’s the latest.
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.
As we have reported in earlier posts this week, the Federal Circuit last week heard four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the court addressed the issue of obviousness-type double patenting, which is an equitable doctrine aimed at preventing patent owners from extending patent protection beyond the statutorily-afforded term. As we noted in our argument preview, one of the main issues presented to the court concerning this doctrine in this case was whether Immunex owns “all substantial rights in [the patents-in-suit], including the ability to control patent prosecution.” Last week the parties presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Here is our argument recap.
This week, the Federal Circuit will hold 16 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 58 cases. Amicus briefs were filed in four of these cases. The first of these is a patent case dealing with patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The second case addresses the issue of obviousness-type double patenting. The third is a takings case involving a notice of interim trail use. The fourth case focuses on invalidity and infringement standards for the administration of a multiple sclerosis treatment. Continue reading for more information about each of the featured cases.