FedCircuitBlog

• Patent Appeal Lessons From Fed. Circ. Remote En Banc Args – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has sat remotely en banc for only two cases in the past year, both of which have been veterans cases, but their oral arguments can provide insight to all practitioners.
• Novartis Patent on MS Drug Gilenya Evades Supreme Court Scrutiny – The Supreme Court will not explore the debate over whether being in regular competition is enough to challenge a PTAB ruling on a rival’s patent without having been sued for infringement.  
• Fourth Circuit Finds ‘Pretzel Crisps’ Plaintiffs are Not Bound to Federal Circuit Across Appeals from Distinct TTAB Decisions – The Fourth Circuit joins the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in considering the reach of the Lanham Act’s permission to seek review of a TTAB decision at either the CAFC or in federal district court.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received four new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new response briefs were filed with the Court. Two in Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC and one in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited.
• Two new amicus briefs were filed with the Court in Sellers v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the first by the National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium and the second by the Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc.
• One letter to Justice Barrett was filed with the Court by counsel for Sasso in Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Sasso, notifying Justice Barrett of a potential conflict of interest.
• Two waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions in two cases: (1) Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and (2) Wynkoop v. Department of Defense.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received four new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new amicus brief was filed with the Court in Sandoz Inc. v. Immunex Corp. by The Association for Accessible Medicines and America’s Health Insurance Plans, Inc.
• One new waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in Jones v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received seven new amicus briefs in a case that has been granted certiorari, Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• The Court received five new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new response brief was filed with the Court in Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
• In petition cases, the Court received six new amicus briefs in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, two new amicus briefs in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and one new amicus brief in Oracle America, Inc. v. United States.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Christy, Inc. v. United States.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received new reply briefs in two cases that have been granted certiorari: (1) Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. and (2) United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court received five new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new response brief was filed with the Court in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
• One new amicus brief was filed by a non-profit advocacy organization, US Inventor, Inc., in the new case Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Hikma filed a waiver of its right to respond to the petition in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in six cases.

Here are the details.

As we previously reported, last week the Federal Circuit issued an en banc opinion in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. After deciding that NOVA had standing and the court had jurisdiction over the case, the court held that a Federal Circuit rule setting a filing deadline for certain petitions was inconsistent with a federal statute and therefore invalid. Notably, to reach these conclusions, the court not only invalidated one of its rules but also overruled three of its cases. Here is our summary of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a prededential en banc opinion in a veterans case, National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, concluding that the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction over the case and that a Federal Circuit rule is invalid given the applicable statute of limitations. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

The Supreme Court received petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) Frederick Demond Wilson v. United States, (2) David O. Keel, v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, (3) Chris Jaye v. United States, (4) B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., and (5) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.

Several amicus briefs were filed in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. It has been a quiet week. In pending en banc cases, this week’s update is a citation to supplemental authority in a veterans case along with the government’s response. In cases with pending petitions for en banc rehearing, this week’s update is a correction to a precedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. An amended petition was filed in a veterans case recently argued before the en banc court. As for pending en banc petitions in patent cases, highlights include new responses to petitions raising questions related to claim preclusion and sanctions; a new amicus brief filed in a case raising a question related to obviousness; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to remedies, issue and claim preclusion, jurisdiction in inter partes review, and alleged due process and takings violations in inter partes review. Here are the details.