FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

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, although no new petitions were filed, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case related to inter partes review estoppel. Here are the details. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released five Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to the terms of a protective order. The court also denied a petition in a case raising questions related to claim construction at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order in a veterans case denying a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, and four other judges joined his opinion. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions, the first in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second in a patent case addressing patent eligibility appealed from the District of Massachusetts; and the third in another patent case involving the same patent and appealed from the Northern District of California. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here is text from the order, the introductions to the opinions, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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 bid by Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Corp and others to revive their challenge to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that made it harder to contest the validity of patents issued by the agency”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s skepticism about “allegations that [Facebook’s] news feed infringed on Usability Sciences’ 2014 patent”; and
• a blog post about the Federal Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Amazon.com, Inc.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in separate cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

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] Bristol Myers Squibb Co subsidiary on Monday los[ing] a renewed bid for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of a 2021 decision that invalidated its cancer-drug patent and overturned a $1.2 billion infringement award it won”; and
• another article arguing that broad functional patent claims suppress medical innovation.

This morning the Federal Circuit released an opinion in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of Texas. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s claim construction as to one term, vacates its construction as to another term, and remands the case. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

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, one new petition was filed in a patent case; a party waived its right to respond in another patent case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied nine petitions. Here are the details.