FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and a Rule 36 judgment.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 Finally, the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal.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This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions and a Rule 36 judgment.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.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the precedential opinion, the court vacated and remanded a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. And in the third nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also issued four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals 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, a reply brief was filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, a new petition was filed with the Court in a veterans case and another in a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and a reply brief was filed in a trade case. Here are the details. 

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and nine nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the nonprecedential orders denied a petition for appellate attorney fees and costs following a Federal Circuit decision reversing and remanding a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders remand cases appealed from the Northern District of West Virginia. Finally, five of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals and erratum.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed 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. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie and joined by Judges Reyna and Taranto, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court lifted a stay of proceedings in a veteran’s benefits case and requested supplemental briefing. As for patent cases, the court received a new petition raising questions related to the vacatur of a preliminary injunction. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit recently issued its opinion in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by a district court that Bard’s patent 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 similarly considered whether MedComp’s patent claims are ineligible. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judges Chen and Wallach, the court reversed the district court’s judgment in the lead appeal and vacated and remanded the district court’s judgmebnt in the cross-appeal. This is our opinion summary.