Last week the Federal Circuit heard three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In the last of these three cases, American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, the American Institute for International Steel (and its co-appellants) presented two questions to the Federal Circuit related to the Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. As we noted in our argument preview, these questions ask whether Congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative authority to the President. Last Friday, the parties presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Taranto, Stoll, and Schall. Here is our recap of those arguments.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the Court is considering whether, to recover a trademark infringer’s profit, a trademark owner must prove that the infringer infringed willfully. Here is our argument recap.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these three cases, Sanford Health Plan v. United States, the United States presented two questions to the Federal Circuit related to the Affordable Care Act. As we noted in our argument preview, these questions ask whether health insurance companies may recover cost-sharing payments identified in the ACA but never funded by Congress. Last Thursday, the United States, Sanford Health Plan, and third party Community Health Plan (whose case was consolidated with Sanford for the oral argument) presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Taranto. This is our recap of those arguments.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In the first of these three cases, Dragon Intellectual Property v. Dish Network LLC, Dish Network and Sirius XM Radio presented three questions to the court. As we noted in our argument preview, all three questions revolve around the district court’s finding that they were not prevailing parties and therefore not entitled to attorneys’ fees. The district court reached these conclusions after determining the case had become moot as a result of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of the underlying patent-in-suit. On Tuesday, Dish Network and Sirius XM Radio, along with the appellee’s attorney (representing himself, his co-counsel, and his firm), presented their arguments to a panel that included Judges Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. This is our argument recap.
Last Friday, a panel of the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Google, a patent case. As we noted in our argument preview, Google seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the district court (here, Chief Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas) to dismiss the case for lack of venue. Chief Judge Gilstrap concluded that Google’s “edge servers” located at Internet Service Provider locations within the district constitute a “regular and established place of business” of Google, subjecting Google to venue in the district court. We are keeping track of the case because it attracted an amicus brief. In that brief, a group of companies lodged their support for Google’s position that these servers do not suffice under the venue statute. Here is our argument recap.
On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United States. While both the insurance companies and the government faced a barrage of questions challenging their positions, the government seemed to face more significant resistance to its position. In short, it sounded like several members of the Court lean toward requiring the government to pay the insurance companies for losses incurred in participating in the health insurance market in reliance on a provision in the Affordable Care Act.
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, a case addressing whether a patent owner has the right under the patent statute to appeal a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a petition for inter partes review was not filed after a statutory deadline. In short, while Justice Gorsuch appeared to agree with the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that patent owners have that right, several other Justices, and particularly Justice Kagan, seemed to harbor significant doubt that Congress had not eliminated the ability to appeal in this circumstance.
The only case argued this week at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief was Monk v. Wilkie, a case in which nine veterans sought class certification to assert claims of unreasonable system-wide delay by the Board of Veterans Appeals in deciding appeals of denials of veterans’ claims. In our argument preview, we highlighted how the case attracted four amicus briefs, all in favor of the veterans, whose request for class certification was denied by an evenly divided en banc Court of Veterans Appeals. On Monday, the parties presented oral arguments to a panel of Federal Circuit including Judges Newman, Lourie, and Reyna. Here is our argument recap.
Settlement Leaves Important Question Unanswered – Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc.
An interesting case that was set to be argued this week involved Power Integrations, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. This case presented the question of whether foreign lost profits may be recovered when patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)—that is, for direct patent infringement, which requires that the infringement occur within the United States. This case—involving a rare interlocutory appeal—was one of only two cases set to be argued this month that included an amicus brief. The parties, however, settled the case and the Federal Circuit granted a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. Thus, while this blog post ordinarily would have been a recap of the oral argument, instead we are limited to analyzing the briefing in the case, highlighting the lingering question the case presented and the parties’ arguments on point.
As previewed on this blog, an important case that was argued this week at the Federal Circuit is Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company. This case involves a dispute regarding the correct application of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which prohibits a petitioner in an inter partes review that results in a final written decision from asserting in a patent infringement case that a patent claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner “raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” A panel of the Federal Circuit including Judges Prost, Newman, and Bryson heard oral arguments in this case on Monday. Here is our argument recap.