There were some fun audio bites in the oral argument of CR BARD, INC. v. Medical Components, Inc., No. 2022-1136 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2023).
Judge Hughes had some frank comments about the court injecting printed matter into patent eligibility determinations:
You can listen to the entire oral argument here:
I saw a blurb yesterday in IPLaw360 that highlighted an appeal from a Fifth Circuit case that will be heard by the Supreme Court next term. The case is Jarkesy v. SEC, 34 F.4th 446 (5th Cir. 2022).
Some of the issues raised in the oral argument at the Fifth Circuit are somewhat related to those that were raised in the Arthrex and Oil States decisions. The Oil States decision is also discussed in the briefing to the Supreme Court, as well as in the dissenting opinion at the Fifth Circuit.
You can listen to the Fifth Circuit oral argument here:
The issues presented in the appeal to the Supreme Court are:
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
- Whether statutory provisions that empower the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate
and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings
seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment.- Whether statutory provisions that authorize the
SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an
agency adjudication instead of filing a district court ac-
tion violate the nondelegation doctrine.- Whether Congress violated Article II by granting
for-cause removal protection to administrative law
judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal
protection.
The oral argument of the day is from LKQ CORPORATION v. GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC, No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2023). The Federal Circuit recently granted en banc review in this case.
I am listing a second oral argument, as well, as there was a companion case argued immediately following the 2021-2348 oral argument. I thought some people might find it interesting.
When argued, the en banc argument should feature Judge Clevenger. While he is a senior judge, he was part of the original panel. So, he is entitled to participate in the en banc decision with the full-time members of the court — although, I believe the Federal Circuit changed its procedures in recent years so that senior judges on the original panel are no longer allowed to vote in determining whether to take a case en banc. Judge Clevenger authored the “Durling” decision in 1996. In the original 2021-2348 panel decision, the “Rosen” and “Durling” tests are discussed.