FedCircuitBlog

Three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Bard’s claims are directed to patent-ineligible printed matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, moreover, lack an inventive concept. With respect to the cross-appeal, the court will similarly consider whether MedComp’s claims are ineligible. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Schall filed a dissenting opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

As we reported yesterday, three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc., a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Realtime’s patents are directed to an abstract idea and lack inventive concept and are thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in an employment case appealed from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; the second comes in a patent case appealed Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and 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, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a trademark case. Here are the details. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order in a patent case granting a petition for a writ of mandamus and ordering the Western District of Texas to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals for failure to prosecute. Here is text from the order and links to the dismissals.

Three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Jazz must request the Food and Drug Administration remove (or “delist”) one of its patents from the FDA’s so-called Orange Book because that patent was improperly listed. This is our argument preview.

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

• an article about the potential impact on the value of patents for universities if the Supreme Court grants review in a recent case decided by the Federal Circuit;
• another article reporting how “U.S. District Judge Alan Albright won’t transfer a cryptographic data technology patent suit against Microsoft Corp.”; and
• a blog post about a district court finding a patent that “covers a process for allowing users to upload ‘dynamic albums’ to be stored on their devices” to be patent ineligible.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning attorney’s fees. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explained why it vacated the award of attorney’s fees and remanded the case for a redetermination of the fees. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. Two transfer appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and one dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the orders, and a link to the dismissal.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case that presented the Court with the opportunity to decide whether the one-year statutory deadline for seeking retroactive disability benefits may be equitably tolled. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s ruling, finding that the relevant section of the governing statute is not subject to equitable tolling. Justice Barrett authored the Court’s decision. This is our opinion summary.