Category Archives: Upcoming Arguments

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – June 2017

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – February 2017

Authors: Kate Leonard*
Editor: Caitlin O’Connell & Lily Robinson

Monday, June 5, 2017

In Re NFC Technology, No. 16-1808, Courtroom 201

In this appeal from the PTAB, the Federal Circuit will address whether the Board exceeded its authority in an inter partes review by sua sponte raising a conception/lack of inurement defense on behalf of Petitioner HTC.  Patent owner NFCT argues that the Board’s actions deprived NFCT of the opportunity to respond to the inurement defense prior to the Board issuing its final written decision.  The PTO argues that NFCT raised the issue of conception and that the Board’s analysis of the issue was not restricted to the rebuttal arguments raised by HTC in its Reply.
Continue reading

Tagged

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – May 2017

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – February 2017

Authors: Caitlin O’Connell
Editor: Lily Robinson

Monday, May 1, 2017

Intervet v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, No. 16-2131, Courtroom 402

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit has been asked to determine whether the AIA eliminated district court review of post-AIA interference decisions, and if so, whether the Court should review interference decisions de novo.  Intervet argues that the Court should overrule its Biogen v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research decision and find that district court review is still available.  Alternatively, Intervet argues that the Court should overrule its Merck & Cie v. Gnosis decision and find that the Federal Circuit should review the Board’s determination of priority de novo.  DuPont argues that the Court’s decisions in Biogen and Gnosis were correctly decided, should not be disturbed, and cannot be revisited absent en banc review.
Continue reading

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – April 2017

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – February 2017

Authors: Caitlin O’Connell
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer

Monday, April 3, 2017

Amgen v. Hospira, No. 16-2179, Courtroom 402

In the first BPCIA case after Amgen v. Sandoz, the Federal Circuit has been asked to determine whether Sandoz should be interpreted to allow discovery of manufacturing information required under 42 U.S.C. § 262 (l)(2)(A).  Amgen argues that the Court in Sandoz made it clear that the reference product sponsor can bring an infringement action and obtain the required information under § 262 (l)(2)(A) through discovery.  Hospira argues that Sandoz did not alter the relevancy and proportionality requirements of FRCP 26(b)(1), and that the information Amgen seeks is irrelevant. Continue reading