FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a report discussing how the neurosurgeon who testified that Judge Newman is “fit to serve . . . responded to a barrage of criticisms aimed at his analysis”;
• an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently reviewed a decision of the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent and Trademark Office for the first time;
• a piece reporting how the Supreme Court recently denied “several high-profile IP petitions, including two that touch on the [Federal Circuit]’s controversial use of one-word affirmances under Rule 36”; and
• an article recounting how “[a]dministrative judges with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should prepare themselves for layoffs, according to an email from Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick.”

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Stupp Corp. v. United States, an international trade case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a decision of the Department of Commerce to use a particular test in a differential pricing analysis used to calculate antidumping margins. Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential orders, one dismisses a petition for a writ of mandamus and the other grants and denies several motions. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders other than the dismissal as well as a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case and a pro se case. The Court also received waivers of the right to respond in five pro se cases; briefs in opposition in two patent cases; a supplemental brief in a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two new amicus briefs in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and two cases addressing Rule 36. Here are the details.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. The issue on appeal in this case was whether patent term extension for a reissued patent “should be calculated based on the issue date of the original patent or the reissued patent.” The Federal Circuit reviewed a district court determination that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office correctly calculated a reissued patent term extension based on the patent’s original issue date. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Mayer and Reyna, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s determination. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, one dismisses an appeal and the other grants a motion to summarily affirm a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order grating the motion to summarily affirm as well as a link to the dismissal. 

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions have been filed. One of the two new petitions raises multiple issues regarding patent ownership and a district court’s authority to prohibit parties from sharing part of a claim construction with a jury. The other new petition raises questions concerning expert testimony to prove infringement of a means plus function element, claim construction, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Both nonprecedential opinions affirm decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The lone nonprecedential order grants an unopposed motion to dismiss cross-appeals and withdraw appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order. 

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court is reviewing whether a district court erred in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses,” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and devoid of connection to the patent’s incremental improvement to the art.” This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article arguing that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “may make defending patent infringement claims more challenging, time-consuming and expensive, but it also has unwittingly complicated similar patent infringement proceedings involving the same patents and their appeals”;
• a blog post suggesting that, in a recent decision related to agency deference, the Federal Circuit’s “approach to the analysis [was] wrong”;
• a piece reporting how “Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has decided to end all current appointments to both the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC), effective immediately”; and
• an article suggesting a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “expands which intellectual property (IP) owners can seek relief before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to block the import of infringing products into the U.S.”