Court Rules News - Federal Circuit
Federal Circuit - The FindLaw Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Court Rules Category

The third time is the charm. After being distributed for three judicial conferences, the Supreme Court granted Teva Pharmaceutical's petition for writ of certiorari on Monday.

The Stakes Are High

The Teva case is a patent dispute surrounding the multiple-sclerosis drug Copaxone. Teva Pharmaceuticals holds the patents for Copaxone, and a decision in its favor would keep the patents alive until September 2015. Generic manufacturers want to release their generic drug in May -- which technically they could, under the Federal Circuit's decision. Annual U.S. sales of Copaxone make up more than half of Teva's profit, and reach over $3 billion annually, so there is much at stake for both Teva, and generic manufacturers, reports Blooomberg.

Some days, it just seems like we should burn down our entire patent system and redesign it from the ground up. Today is one of those days.

How complicated is venue in a patent case? Take a look at Apple. They're in Cupertino, California, right? Except, they have a one-person subsidiary in Luxembourg, which itself has a six-person subsidiary that does nothing but patent work, and is located in the patent plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas.

Where do they sue? Probably Texas, since it's so patent-friendly. Of course, that's probably why they located a new subsidiary there. And when a defendant has to travel to Texas to be sued, well, it's probably too bad. And two recent decisions by the Federal Circuit won't help, as the panel took an already murky procedural question and made it worse.

Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments: SCOTUS Oral Arguments Almost Here

With oral arguments slated for April, anticipation continues to build in the U.S. Supreme Court case Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc.

Stemming from the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the legal standard of invalidity for indefiniteness.

Circuit Court procedures often are so complex that they seem arbitrary. A senior judge can hear a case, but he can't vote on en banc rehearing. He can dissent from a panel rehearing denial, but not an en banc rehearing denial. He can sit on the en banc panel but can't vote or dissent on granting the rehearing.

If that sounds confusing, welcome to the party. Senior Judge Plager was equally confused, and irritated, and expressed as much in a footnote to his dissent, calling the original decision and judge-created rule for determining disability levels for veterans a "miscarriage of justice."

The controversial rule, by the way, clarifies which disability rating applies to veterans, arguably conflicts with applicable regulations, and should lead to more unfavorable rulings for veterans seeking disability benefits.

The end of the year is near, and in this not-so-busy period, it's a great time to brush up on the administrative basics -- and that's what the Federal Circuit is doing. With revised rules, fees and schedules, here's the latest info to keep your appellate practice moving smoothly...

Sequester, debt-ceilings, defaults and bailouts. When will it end? Since 2008, the markets have been in a constant state of doubt and upheaval, and because of the delays of litigation, we're still hearing about 2008 bailouts now.

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that Ben Bernanke could be deposed about his involvement in his decision to bailout AIG in 2008. The government swiftly filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which the Federal Circuit granted.

After what seems like the 200th round in the Apple v. Samsung litigation, we find ourselves asking: Why can't we all just get along? Well, that day might have actually come.

Both Apple and Samsung appealed the District Court for the Northern District of California's orders refusing to seal confidential documents submitted in support of pre- and post-trial motions. The Federal Circuit Court of appeals agreed with their positions, and reversed and remanded the district court's decision.

This case should've been simple. The University of Utah sues the University of Massachusetts in a patent inventorship dispute. 28 U.S.C. 1251(a) quite clearly states, "The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States."

Utah versus Massachusetts. Why is this a question?

And yet, after some party-swapping, the Federal Circuit allowed the case to proceed in the District Court, over the dissent of Judge Moore. How?

Normally not a hotbed of dramatic happenings, the Federal Circuit has been on fire lately. Two recent cases are sure to keep the Federal Circuit anything but quiet.

Starr International Company v. U.S.

Maurice "Hank" Greenberg was AIG's leader for four decades, and his company Starr International Co., was AIG's largest shareholder with a 12% stake, reports Reuters. Claiming the government short-changed AIG shareholders in the 2008 government bailout, Starr sought to depose Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

I opened my inbox last week to find this tweet, forwarded to me by a friend:

The Federal Circuit's website states: "Inappropriate facial gestures or exaggerated gesticulating is forbidden." Drat.

-- Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) August 8, 2013

Curiosity piqued, I took to the Federal Circuit's website to determine the extent of this ban on facial gestures. Surely, the court is only regulating the conduct of the attorneys arguing before the court, and doing so solely in the interests of justice, right?