FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Notably, much of the activity relates in some way to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. Highlights include three new petitions (including two petitions raising questions related to waiver of arguments similar to those made in Arthrex), a response in opposition to a petition also making arguments raised in Arthrex, briefing on a motion raising arguments related to Arthrex, requests for responses in three cases (including, notably, Arthrex itself), and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, issued a nonprecedential order unsealing the opinion in that case, and issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions and a list of 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 the Supreme Court’s rejection of the petition in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC and oral arguments heard by the Federal Circuit in Sanford Health Plan v. United States and American Institute for International Steel v. United States.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in a trade case, and a precedential order denying a petition for rehearing en banc. The Federal Circuit also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, one of the most important patent cases in recent memory. In that case, the petitioner pleaded with the Court to revisit the doctrine of patent eligibility given the uncertainty and incorrect results generated by the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., particularly in the area of life sciences technologies. Notably, the Court also denied review in two other cases raising issues related to patent eligibility, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. and HP Inc. v. Berkheimer. We have the details.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In the first of these three cases, Dragon Intellectual Property v. Dish Network LLC, Dish Network and Sirius XM Radio presented three questions to the court. As we noted in our argument preview, all three questions revolve around the district court’s finding that they were not prevailing parties and therefore not entitled to attorneys’ fees. The district court reached these conclusions after determining the case had become moot as a result of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of the underlying patent-in-suit. On Tuesday, Dish Network and Sirius XM Radio, along with the appellee’s attorney (representing himself, his co-counsel, and his firm), presented their arguments to a panel that included Judges Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a trade case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a Tucker Act case. Here are the introductions.

To recover a trademark infringer’s profit, must a trademark owner prove that the infringer acted willfully? On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., a case in which the Federal Circuit held that willfulness is a prerequisite to disgorgement of profits in trademark cases. Here is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case along with seven Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.