FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Two new petitions have been filed. One raises questions related the substantial evidence standard for review of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the test for analogous art. The other raises a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition raising a question related to what patents must be listed in the Orange Book, along with three new amicus briefs supporting the petition in that same case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other comes in an appeal from a decision by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a joint motion to remand a case and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Petitioners filed three new petitions, one presenting a question regarding waiver of alternative grounds for affirmance, one presenting a question regarding the burden of proving non-enablement in an inter partes review proceeding, and one presenting a question regarding injunctive relief pending a mandate. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising a question regarding the listing of patents in the Orange Book. Finally, a response was filed to the petition raising a question regarding injunctive relief pending a mandate. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. An opening brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. Three new amicus briefs have also been filed in the other pending en banc case regarding a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. Additionally, a new petition was filed in a Hatch-Waxman case raising a question regarding listing of patents in the Orange Book. Finally, the court denied an en banc petition raising a question concerning the lifting of an administrative injunction. Here are the highlights.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, a patent case that attracted seven amicus briefs. In this case, Amneal alleged that Teva delayed the entry of generic products into the market by improperly listing certain patents in the Orange Book. The District of New Jersey agreed and required Teva to delist its patents from the Orange Book. Teva appealed, and the Federal Circuit stayed the lower courts order pending its resolution of the appeal. Late last month, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Taranto and Hughes, the Federal Circuit lifted the stay and affirmed the district court’s delisting order. This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday and today the Federal Circuit released one precedential and two nonprecedential opinions. All come in patent cases. The precedential opinion affirms a district court’s decision to delist patents from the Orange Book because the patents “contain no claim for the active ingredient at issue” but instead “are directed to components of a metered inhaler device.” The nonprecedential opinions affirm a judgment of patent infringement and damages by a district court and affirm a judgment of invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted seven amicus briefs. In it, Teva challenges a district court’s injunction requiring it to delist five patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. Judges Prost, Taranto, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

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 activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 two new response briefs, one in a case raising questions related to whether a district court erred in denying a motion to intervene and to unseal court records and another in a patent case involving a challenge to a district court’s injunction requiring the delisting of patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book; two new reply briefs, one in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility, claim construction, and infringement and another in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility; and five new amicus briefs in the patent case challenging the delisting of patents from the Orange Book. Here are the details.