FedCircuitBlog

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a much-anticipated patent case, United States v. Arthrex, Inc. The first issue for consideration by the Court is whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are principal or inferior officers. The second issue is, if administrative patent judges are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the dismissal of a government contracts case as time-barred. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order late yesterday denying a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a copyright case, vacating a decision by the Court of Federal Claims, which had absolved the U.S. Navy of copyright infringement. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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

• The Court received new reply briefs in two cases that have been granted certiorari: (1) Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. and (2) United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court received five new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new response brief was filed with the Court in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
• One new amicus brief was filed by a non-profit advocacy organization, US Inventor, Inc., in the new case Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Hikma filed a waiver of its right to respond to the petition in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in six cases.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case over a dissent from Judge Dyk, and also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a “Rails-to-Trails” takings case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case denying a petition for a writ of mandamus that would have directed the Northern District of California to vacate an order denying a motion to dismiss based on the first-to-file doctrine. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• The Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari in the following cases: (1) Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. v. United States, (2) Sandoz Inc. v. Immunex Corp., and (3) Gadsden Industrial Park, LLC v. United States.

Here are the details.

• Federal Circuit Affirms Government’s E-Passport Patent Win – The United States’s e-passport technology was found to have not infringed Iris Corporation Berhad’s patent in a ruling issued by the Federal Circuit
• Federal Circuit Judge ‘Baffled’ By Mylan Position In PTAB Appeal – Judge Moore expressed her confusion at the prospect of Mylan’s attorney not requesting mandamus relief during oral arguments on Friday.
• Federal Circuit Affirms District Court Finding that Fax/Scanner Patent Claims Are Indefinite – In Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s finding of indefiniteness for Infinity’s fax/scanner patent.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in an international trade case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and three nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, one in a patent case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.