FedCircuitBlog

Last week the Federal Circuit heard only one case that attracted an amicus brief. In the case, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., the court confronted several patent-law-related questions. As we noted in our argument preview, these questions related to literal infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, claim construction, damages, and injunctive relief. The amicus brief, however, focused only on the appropriateness of injunctive relief. On Friday, the parties presented their arguments to a panel that included Judges Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. This is our argument recap.

As we reported earlier today, this morning a panel of the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. In this case, the panel reached three important conclusions regarding procedural and substantive matters related to allegations of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one precedential opinion in a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights comments on an oral argument held last week in a patent case, a note on a recent Federal Circuit decision that Federal Reserve Banks may challenge patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an article about another recent Federal Circuit decision involving multi-color trademarks, and a comment on yet another recent decision by the Federal Circuit in an ongoing patent dispute involving medical devices.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one nonprecedential order. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the order.

As we reported earlier today, the Federal Circuit issued its precedential opinion in Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank, holding that the “[Federal Reserve] Banks are ‘persons’ who may petition for post-issuance review under the AIA.” This holding marks the Federal Circuit’s first significant interpretation of last year’s Supreme Court opinion in Return Mail v. U.S. Postal Service.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. The Federal Circuit also issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one nonprecedential opinion in a death benefits case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the order, and 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 amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear a case challenging the retroactive application of inter partes reviews, a Federal Circuit decision on reprisal claims under the Whistleblower Protection Act, a lawsuit brought by Boeing to protect data in federal contracts, and a Federal Circuit decision allowing attorney fees following a settlement between parties.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and one precedential opinion in a military case. The Federal Circuit also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the erratum.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There is no new activity to report related to granted cases. With respect to petitions cases, however, a petitioner presented the Court with three questions in a case involving a government contract, the government filed a response to a petition in a veterans case related to the Equal Access to Justice Act, a veteran filed a reply in support of her petition related to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1984, and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.