FedCircuitBlog

On Monday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, a panel of the court composed of Judges Newman, Linn, and Hughes unanimously reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict finding that the patent-in-suit was invalid as anticipated. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Supplemental briefs were filed in both en banc veterans cases pending before the court, and an amicus brief was filed in one of the cases. As for petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases, highlights include new petitions filed in two cases raising questions related to issue and claim preclusion, jurisdiction in inter partes review proceedings, and alleged due process and takings violations in an inter partes review, as well as a response to a petition that raised a question related to patent law’s non-obviousness requirement. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order declining to permit interlocutory review of an order by the Court of Federal Claims denying a motion to dismiss. Here is the text from the Federal Circuit’s order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a patent case and a veterans case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus that would have directed a district court to stay proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Two cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC. In this case, Trimble, the plaintiff-appellant, asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action based on a lack of personal jurisdiction over a patent owner. This is our argument preview.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, a panel of the court composed of Judges Prost, Newman, and Bryson unanimously affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a district court’s construction of claim terms. The court also vacated the district court’s granting of JMOL based on estoppel due to a previous inter partes review proceeding. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment that the asserted claims were not improperly broadened. Based on its holdings, the court remanded the case back to the district court. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential opinion in a case concerning false advertising and the Lanham Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Upcoming Modifications to Clerk’s Office Procedures. In the notice, the court announced it will be resuming public access by telephone, discontinuing public assistance by email, and finalizing electronic filing access for pro se parties, among other things. Here is a summary of the announced changes.

Recently we hosted an online symposium in anticipation of last week’s sunset of covered business method review (CBMR), proceedings held by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to review the patentability of claims included in “covered business method” patents. The Federal Circuit, in turn, reviews the PTAB’s judgments in these proceedings. Six authors across four blog posts presented various analyses of CBMR, including arguments for and against allowing the program to sunset, the history of CBMR, and the significance of Federal Circuit opinions reviewing decisions by the PTAB in these proceedings. Here, we wrap up our online symposium by highlighting each contribution and its central premise, before I provide some brief closing remarks reflecting on what we have read.