FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post suggesting a recent Supreme Court copyright-law decision is a “troubling signal for the branded pharmaceutical company trying to hold a generic manufacturer liable for induced patent infringement” in the skinny label case decided by the Federal Circuit;
• a blog post highlighting a recent Federal Circuit “decision regarding recombinant DNA subject-matter eligibility”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision focusing on “whether . . . the patentee is entitled to damages reflecting foreign sales.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in comes in a patent case addressing inventorship. The nonprecedential comes in another patent case addressing anticipation and obviousness. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, seven amicus briefs were filed supporting the respondent. As for pending petitions, since our last update, five new petitions were filed in a patent case, another patent case addressing sanctions, a veterans disability benefits case, a government contracts case, and a pro se case; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and two pro se cases; a reply brief was filed in trademark case; two amicus briefs were filed in a patent case and Trade Act case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a patent case and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

As we reported yesterday, two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in April attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Ollnova Technolodies, Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, a patent case. In it, the patent owner Ollnova appeals a denial of requested prejudgment interest, and the accused infringer Ecobee cross-appeals the lower court’s decisions on jury instructions and multiple issues including eligibility, infringement, damages, and marking. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case addressing infringement. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article reporting how recently a “panel of seven appellate and district court judges rejected Judge Pauline Newman’s effort to regain her position on the Federal Circuit, where the 98-year-old jurist was suspended by her colleagues”;
• a blog post highlighting how, on remand from the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “reaffirmed its decision that The Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (‘Broad’) were the first inventors of the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in eukaryotic cells”;
• an article discussing how the U.S. International Trade Commission “has launched more infringement investigations over patents and other intellectual property that have not been in dispute there before”; and
• an article commenting on how Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “faced sharp questions during an oversight hearing at the House of Representatives . . . on his office’s role in benefiting other Trump administration officials.”

Two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in April attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd, a patent case. In it, A.L.M. Holding appeals a district court’s conclusion that it lacked Article III standing. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and includes a dissenting opinion by Judge Dyk. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; one comes in a patent case on appeal from a district court; and the final nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to yesterday’s dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, three new petitions for en banc rehearing were filed raising questions related to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert witness analyses related to disclosed structure for means-plus-function limitations, and patent eligibility; one new response was filed to a petition raising questions related to de minimis infringement; and the Federal Circuit denied a petition that raised a question related to eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. It comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.