FedCircuitBlog

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This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, one dismisses an appeal and the other grants a motion to summarily affirm a decision of the Court of Federal Claims.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This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Both nonprecedential opinions affirm decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.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.”

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit also released its opinion in AliveCor, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that we have been following because it attracted several amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit was asked to review a judgment of the International Trade Commission in a patent infringement case that resulted in a limited exclusion order restricting importation of Apple’s watch products. In a per curium opinion issued by a panel including Judges Hughes, Linn, and Stark, however, the Federal Circuit vacated the Commission’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., a patent case that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed three written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in related inter partes review proceedings. The PTAB found all claims of three patents unpatentable over certain asserted prior art. AliveCor challenged the PTAB’s findings, including by arguing that the IPR petitioner, Apple, violated its discovery obligations. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Hughes and Linn, affirmed the PTAB’s obviousness determination and declined to address AliveCor’s discovery challenge because it failed to raise the issue at the PTAB. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and a nonprecedential order. Of the precedential opinions, two come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the other comes in a takings case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in pro se appeals, one comes in a veterans case, and the other comes in a patent case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.