FedCircuitBlog

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This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a nonprecedential order denying a petition for patent and en banc rehearing in a patent infringement case, along with a nonprecedential opinion by Judges Lourie, Prost, and Hughes concerning the denial of panel rehearing and the argument their panel decision changed the law of enablement; and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.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, we are still waiting for the Supreme Court to issue opinions in the two pending patent cases. As for petition cases, three new petitions were filed in patent, tax, and pro se cases; one petitioner filed a reply brief in a patent case; one respondent submitted its waiver of right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court dismissed one patent case and denied the petitions in two additional patent cases.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a vaccine case appealed from the United States Court of Federal Claims, a Rule 36 judgment, and an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgment and the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one in a veterans case and the other in an international trade case. The court also issued a precedential order transferring an antitrust case to the Fifth Circuit based on a lack of appellate jurisdiction at the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, we are still waiting for the Court to issue opinions in the two pending patent cases. As for petitions, a new petition was filed in a pro se veterans case; five petitioners filed reply briefs in cases presenting questions related to Tucker Act, patent, and takings law; one petitioner filed a motion to dismiss in a patent case; and the Court denied five petitions in cases involving patent, contracts, and veterans law.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in veterans cases, a nonprecedential opinion in a case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction, another nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Bureau of Justice Assistance regarding death benefits, and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a party’s protest in a government contract case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.