FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post arguing that in a recent case “the Federal Circuit was wrong in affirming the district court’s refusal to enhance damages”;
• a piece likening the current U.S. patent system to the Titanic, asserting it is “fast approaching an iceberg with disaster imminent”;
• a report explaining how the Supreme Court recently “declined to hear a patent owner’s challenge of the court’s framework for analyzing potentially abstract ideas not eligible for patent protection”; and
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit “has refused to revisit its decision forcing Teva Pharmaceuticals to delist certain inhaler patents from the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book.”

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 13 panels to hear 63 cases. Of the 63 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 41 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

As we have reported, three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC. In it, Teva challenges a district court’s injunction requiring it to delist five patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. This is our argument preview.

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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case raising a question related to inter partes review estoppel; a brief in opposition was submitted in another patent case raising a question related to patent eligibility; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; and two reply briefs were submitted in patent cases addressing so-called “skinny labelling” and the written description requirement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, Arellano filed his reply brief in Arellano v. McDonough. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a Rule 36 case, three amicus briefs were submitted in a patent case, and a brief in opposition was submitted in the same patent case. Here are the details.