FedCircuitBlog

How J.E.M. and Chakrabarty Make the Case for DABUS – Kirk Hartung wrote an article for IPWatchDog about J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc., v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Diamond v. Chakrabarty, discussing their impact on patent protection with resect to inventions created using artificial intelligence.

Teva to Defend Ruling Allowing Narcan Generic at Federal Circuit – Perry Cooper posted an article on BloombergLaw reporting that a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit will consider an appeal in Adapt Pharma Operations v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. and if the decision is upheld, “[Narcan] generics can come to market 15 years sooner.”

Apple Asks SCOTUS to Hear Inter Partes Review Appeal – In an article on LawStreetMedia, Christina Tabacco writes about a case involving Apple and Optis Cellular Technology LLC, Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, and Unwired Planet International Limited.

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

• The Supreme Court rendered its decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the long-running software copyright case.
• Three amicus briefs were filed in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a case that has been granted certiorari.
• The Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court in response to the petition in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited.
• One new amicus brief was filed with the Court in Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative v. United States by Anthem, Inc., Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc., Highmark Inc., L.A. Care Health Plan, and Molina Healthcare of California, Inc.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions in three cases.

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 two dispositions, one new case with an amicus brief, one case with new briefing, one case update, three recent oral arguments, and two upcoming oral arguments. 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.

As we previously reported, the Federal Circuit recently conducted a panel rehearing in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In this case, Teva petitioned the en banc court to reconsider the panel’s decision that Teva induced infringement through use of a skinny label on its generic version of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) drug Coreg. Teva pointed to Hatch-Waxman and asserted that Congress provided a statutory “carve-out” mechanism allowing a generic to adopt a skinny label for unpatented uses that cannot be blocked by a patent on one method of using the drug. The panel treated the motion as requesting panel rehearing and granted panel rehearing. This is our recap of the rehearing oral argument.

Recently, a panel of the Federal Circuit granted panel rehearing in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In this case, Teva petitioned the en banc court to reconsider the panel’s decision that Teva induced infringement through use of a skinny label on its generic version of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) drug Coreg. The panel treated the petition as requesting panel rehearing, granted the petition, and ordered a second oral argument in the case, which was held this morning. Here are the details of the case.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. It has been a quiet week. Highlights include a second caption change in a veterans case pending before the en banc court, a grant of panel rehearing in a patent case raising a question concerning inducement of infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman, and a denial of a petition in a patent case raising questions related to enablement and claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court will hear oral argument tomorrow in a veterans case. As for patent cases, highlights include new petitions questions related to inter partes review, enablement, and eligible subject matter; a new response to a petition raising questions related to the intersection of inducement of infringement and Hatch-Waxman; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to eligible subject matter, enablement, the intersection of venue and Hatch-Waxman, and the presumption of validity. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to transfer of venue in a patent case, an amicus brief in the same case, and eight amicus briefs in another case with a petition raising questions related to inducement of patent infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions raising questions related to inter partes review, eligible subject matter, and enablement; a new response to a petition addressing intervention; two new invitations to respond to petitions raising questions related to transfer of venue and inducement of infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and the denial of a petition related to anticipation. Here are the details.