Category Archives: Upcoming Arguments

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

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – February 2017

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – February 2017

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

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Allergan v. Sandoz, No. 16-1085, Courtroom 201

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will determine whether collateral estoppel can bar a party from asserting an infringement claim when, in previous litigation between the parties, a patent in the same family and covering the same product was held invalid.  Allergan argues that collateral estoppel should not apply in this case because the issue of the validity of the eyelash growth and eyelash darkness claims is not “identical.”  Sandoz argues that collateral estoppel should apply in this case because the two sets of claims are “substantially similar,” thus the issue is “identical.”
Continue reading

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – January 2017

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – December 2016

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

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Golden Bridge Technology v. Apple, No. 16-1537, Courtroom 201

In this appeal arising from the N.D. Cal., the Federal Circuit is tasked with deciding whether Octane Fitness effectively overturned Shum v. Intel Corp. on the issue of awarding costs when there is more than one “prevailing party.”  Golden Bridge argues that Shum established the type of “overly restrictive” framework that Octane Fitness rejected and that the district court judge should have discretion in awarding costs.  Apple argues that Octane Fitness only addressed the “exceptional case” standard and is thus inapplicable. Continue reading