FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions today.

This Tuesday the Supreme Court returns from its summer hiatus, holding its first conference of the 2019 Term. Here is a list of the petitions that have been distributed for Tuesday’s conference in cases decided by the Federal Circuit, organized by subject matter, along with some comments.

This week and next Monday the Federal Circuit will hold 17 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 47 cases. Notable cases include Evolved Wireless LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., In Re FCA US LLC, X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., and VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Next week the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc. For the third time in a series of cases brought by VirnetX, Apple is appealing a judgment of infringement. As explained in VirnetX’s brief, “[i]n this action . . . a jury found infringement by revised versions of VPN on Demand and FaceTime,” “finding . . . that VirnetX was entitled to $502 million in damages.”

Today the Federal Circuit issued a precedential erratum.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights news related to the Federal Circuit’s October hearings, a comment on a petition pending before the Supreme Court, a note on a recent amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court, and a discussion of a recent Federal Circuit opinion on the necessity of adequate notice of changes in patent infringement theories.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a design patent case, one precedential opinion in a tax credit dispute with the United States government, two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases, and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

A constitutional question will be argued next week in a patent case entitled Evolved Wireless LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc. This case presents, however, a total of three issues:  (1) “Whether the Board erred in concluding the patent claims at issue are unpatentable, by failing to properly apply its own adopted claim construction”; (2) “Whether the Board erred by refusing to consider the declaration of Evolved’s expert on the sole ground that it did not include a statement referring to penalty of perjury”; and (3) “Whether the proceedings violated Evolved’s Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Of the six pending merits cases, there was not much activity, with the exception of one case where multiple amicus briefs were filed. Two new petitions were also filed—one in a patent case, and one in a government contract case—as well as two responses in opposition to petitions and two amicus briefs in favor of petitions.

Another interesting case being argued next week is Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc. This case presents the question of whether an improved cardiac monitoring device is ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and also whether early dismissal of the case based on the finding of ineligibility was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).