Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases, including two articles commenting on this week’s oral arguments, another article commenting on a recent Federal Circuit opinion related to personalized medicine, and another reporting on Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, a case the Supreme Court will hear this upcoming term.

At Law360, Khorri Atkinson reported on the oral argument on Tuesday in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Big Fish Games, Inc., noting that “Federal Circuit judges . . . questioned whether two Uniloc patents for technology that allows computer systems to pause the copying of information from one location to another and then resume copying were too abstract to be valid” and that two judges “seemed to agree . . . that the patents do not illustrate or set out a clear way of programming generic computers.”

Reuters filed a story on Wednesday’s oral argument in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., noting the “court appeared divided during oral argument . . . over whether to resurrect a jury verdict that required Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to pay GlaxoSmithKline PLC more than $235 million for infringing a patent covering its blood pressure drug Coreg.”

JD Supra published an article by Nicholas Landau and Stephanie Scruggs commenting on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., noting that it “could have a profound effect on the patenting of personalized medicine in the United States.”

Bloomberg Law’s Malathi Nayak reported on the successful petition for certiorari by Thryv, Inc. (formerly known as Dex Media Inc.) in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, highlighting that the Supreme Court “could clarify when a no-appeal provision in patent law applies” to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and “affect how often parties appeal the agency’s decision to hear a patent challenge” in an inter partes review.