FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two precedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, dismissed-in-part, and remanded a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

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

• a blog post about the United States government’s statement of interest in the patent infringement case involving COVID-19 vaccines; and
• an article about the U.S. International Trade Commission “bann[ing] imports of video-streaming fitness devices made by Peloton Interactive Inc and iFit Inc.”

Late yesterday and later this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. In the opinion, the court affirmed a judgment in a case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Four of the orders dismiss appeals, while one is an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and erratum.

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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in patent cases, and the government waived its right to respond in three cases. Here are the details. 

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, two of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals, Rule 36 judgments, and erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Live Chat Feature Available on Federal Circuit Website. In this notice, the court announced that a website chat feature will supplant current communication methods with the Clerk’s Office. The notice indicates the chat feature will offer real time assistance without having to call or download software prior to use. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the first opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Northern District of California a case where Apple and other companies are challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s so-called Fintiv factors and, in particular, in the decision whether to institute inter partes review proceedings the role of the pendency of district-court infringement litigation involving the same patents. In the second opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware. In the third opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a judgment in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the order and Rule 36 judgment.

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

• an article about “[b]iotechnology giant Amgen . . . arguing that Sanofi is a walking contradiction when it comes to the patent challenger’s stance on enablement requirements”;
• another article about a Federal Circuit decision finding “Google LLC must litigate a patent infringement lawsuit brought by telecom startup Flypsi Inc. in Waco, Texas, rather than San Francisco”; and
• a third article about “how to handle AI inventions from a policy perspective.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions and a Rule 36 judgment. In the first opinion, the court dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the second opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• an article about a bill that “would stop pharma companies from using lawsuits to block the sale of a competing generic drug”;
• another article about a party “ask[ing] the US Supreme Court to clarify its rule for when an idea is considered abstract and thus not eligible to be patented”; and
• a blog post about “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal . . . correcting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on its approach to the ‘compelling merits’ analysis.”