FedCircuitBlog

• Federal Circuit Hearing More Cases by Phone – The Federal Circuit will increase the number of arguments it hears via phone next month.
• Bad Conduct During Litigation Means Attorneys’ Fees Regardless of Damage Amount – The Federal Circuit disagrees with lowering an award of attorney fees based on a lesser damages award.
• COVID-19 Underscores Diagnostic Patent Eligibility Problems – What is the impact of recent judicial precedent on diagnostic methods?

Here’s the latest.

This post summarizes the recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• New petitions were filed in (1) Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States and (2) Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States.
• In Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, the United States submitted it’s brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari.

Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Hardy v. United States. Hardy v. United States is a takings case on appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. The case concerns whether several deeds at issue granted an interest in fee simple or an easement in the disputed parcels of land.

Here is a review of the case and issues on appeal.

• Full Federal Circuit Will Consider Court Review of VA Rules – The Federal Circuit will consider whether it lacks jurisdiction to review interpretive rules in the VA’s administrative staff manual.
• CAFC Issues Another Precedential Decision on Standing – In a recent opinion, the Federal Circuit addressed standing requirements regarding IPRs.
• Federal Circuit Sinks Another Attempt to Use PTO Guidance – The Federal Circuit makes clear that it does not apply USPTO guidance when determining subject matter eligibility.

Here’s the latest.

• Federal Circuit Finds Article III Standing – In Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit was asked to determine whether Grit Energy lacked Article III standing to appeal a PTAB decision.
• Interpreting the Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act – James Eisenmann explains how to interpret Sayers v. DVA.
• Uber Gets Win Over Location-Sharing Patent – The Federal Circuit finds it would have been obvious to combine prior art location plotting patents.

Here’s the latest.

• A new petition was filed in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
• New responses were filed in (1) Celgene Corp. v. Peter, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, and (3) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC
• New replies were filed in (1) General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp. and (2) Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals LLC

Here is the latest on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• No Importing Limitations from Specification in § 101 Analysis -Thomas DaMario recaps the result in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.
• Google Asks Full Fed. Circ. Not To Rehear Venue Ruling – Google urged the Federal Circuit not to rehear In re Google LLC en banc.
• Federal Circuit Revives Cardiac Monitoring Patent – The Federal Circuit held that the claims at issue were not patent ineligible under § 101 in Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.

Here’s the latest.

• Justices Told To Skip Challenge Over Doctrine Of Equivalents – Eli Lilly and Co. is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a challenge of a Federal Circuit ruling over when patent infringement can be found under the doctrine of equivalents.
• The Federal Circuit Clarifies The Notice Requirements Of The Administrative Procedure Act – How do the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act operate in the context of claim amendments during inter partes reviews?
• Uniloc’s Bluetooth Patent Case Against LG Revived – LG Electronics must face revived claims that it infringed a Bluetooth connectivity patent.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The petition in Superior Communications, Inc. v. Voltstar Technologies, Inc. was granted. The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for further consideration in light of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 590 U. S. _ (2020).
• One new Tucker Act petition was filed in Callan Campbell v. United States.
• A new response was filed in both (1) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Company and (2) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company.
• New amicus briefs were filed in (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States and (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission.

Here are the details.

Next week, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in Hardy v. the United States. Hardy v. United States is a takings case on appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. The heart of the dispute concerns whether several deeds at issue granted an interest in fee simple or an easement in the disputed parcels of land. This case attracted one amicus brief discussed further below. Two issues will be presented for the court’s review. Here is a preview of the case and issues on appeal.