FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to dismiss a claim based on laches. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and another nonprecedential opinion affirming a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims about subject-matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This week and last the Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc. and Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., two patent cases appealed from the Federal Circuit. Here is a report on recent articles and blog posts related to these cases.

USPTO Provides Guidance on Director Review Process Under Arthrex – On IPWatchDog, Eileen McDermott and Steve Brachmann write about how after the Arthrex decision the Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would implement the Supreme Court’s remedy using an interim rule that gives the Acting Director the authority to consider requests for reconsideration of final decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

What Will Arthrex Review Look Like? – Bradley Roush and George E. Quillin posted an article on the National Law Review raising questions many are having about how the Patent and Trademark Office will implement the new Director-led review process.

Justices Uphold a Narrow Version of Patent Assignor Estoppel – On SCOTUSBlog, Eric M. Fraser discusses how the Supreme Court reached its decision in Minerva narrowing the doctrine of assignor estoppel.

Professor Kagan v. Professor Barrett, Round 1 of N – On the Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman posts about how in the Minerva case “two former professors were on opposite sides of the docket.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, this week the Court decided Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., in which the Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s approach to the assignor estoppel doctrine. Additionally, three cases were granted, vacated, and remanded based on the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. regarding application of the Appointments Clause to administrative patent judges. As for petition cases:

Here are the details.

• a reply brief was submitted in support of a petition in a government contract case;
• the government filed a waiver of right to respond in a patent case;
• the Court dismissed one petition; and
• the Court denied five petitions, including four regarding application of the Appointments Clause to administrative patent judges.

CAFC Denies Amgen Petition to Reconsider Enablement Test for Biotech Patents – In an article on IPWatchDog, Logan Murr reports on the Federal Circuit’s denial of an en banc petition raising questions related to enablement filed by filed by Amgen Inc. in their case against Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. 

AWS Urges Supreme Court to Reject Oracle JEDI Review Petition – John Hewitt Jones writes for FedScoop.com about how “Amazon Web Services has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to reject an earlier petition by Oracle to renew its challenge to the Pentagon’s $10 billion Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract.”

Federal Circuit Affirms Board Decision on Pandemic-Related Claim – On GovernmentContractsLegalForum.com, Steve McBrady, Charles Baek, Michelle Coleman, Rob Sneckenberg, John Nakoneczny, and Catherine Shames explain how the Federal Circuit “recently affirmed the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals’ (CBCA) decision denying a pandemic-related claim in Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Secretary of State.”

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Cost Sharing Reduction Case – Susan Morse comments on HealthCareFinanceNews.com about how the Supreme Court will not hear a case decided by the Federal Circuit “regarding unpaid cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers.”

This past Monday, June 21, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., and Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. By a vote of five to four, the Court concluded that the statutory authority conferred upon the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to issue final decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch in inter partes review proceedings violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause because the PTAB’s Administrative Patent Judges are not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Given this violation, the Court voted seven to two to sever the unconstitutional portion of the patent statute, giving the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the power to review the PTAB’s decisions. Here is a summary of the Court’s opinions.

Justices Craft Their Own Remedy for Violation of Constitution’s Appointments Clause – George Quillin and Jeanne Gills post to SCOTUSblog about the Supreme Court’s decision this week in United States v. Arthrex.

Yu v. Apple Settles It: The CAFC is Suffering from a Prolonged Version of Alice in Wonderland Syndrome – Gene Quinn reports on IPWatchDog that “the Federal Circuit seems to be dealing with an exceptionally prolonged and worsening version of Alice in Wonderland syndrome.”

Amarin Rebuffed in High Court Bid to Revive Vascepa Patents – Susan Decker and Greg Stohr report for Bloomberg that the Supreme Court “declined to consider a bid by Amarin Corp. to revive six patents on the heart medicine Vascepa.”

Supreme Court Rebuffs Cost-Sharing Reduction Payment Appeal; $20 Million For State-Based Marketplaces – On HealthAffairs.org, Katie Keith notes “that two August decisions by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will stand.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The last week has been a busy one. As for granted cases, this week the Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc., agreeing with the Federal Circuit that the America Invents Act created an Appointments Clause violation with respect to the appointment and supervision of Administrative Patent Judges in inter partes review proceedings. As for petition cases:

• three new petitions were filed in patent law, Tucker Act, and pro se cases;
• two respondents filed briefs in opposition in vaccine and government contract cases;
• a respondent filed a brief in support of a petition in a patent case;
• a reply brief was submitted in supported of a petition in a patent case;
• the government filed waivers of right to respond in a tax case and a pro se case;
• a petitioner in a patent case filed a motion to dismiss; and
• the Court dismissed thirteen petitions.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a nonprecedential order denying a petition for patent and en banc rehearing in a patent infringement case, along with a nonprecedential opinion by Judges Lourie, Prost, and Hughes concerning the denial of panel rehearing and the argument their panel decision changed the law of enablement; and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the summary afirmances.

This morning the Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit that the statutory authority given to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board violates the Appointments Clause. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Federal Circuit as to the appropriate remedy given this violation. According to the Supreme Court, both the constitutional violation and the appropriate remedy relate to the lack of statutory authority for the Director of the USPTO, a principal officer of the United States nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, to decide whether to grant rehearing with respect to the underlying inter partes review proceeding. Here is a brief summary of the Court’s holding in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.; Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.; and Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., along with language from the Court’s controlling opinion.