FedCircuitBlog

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

• The Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Mantissa Corp. v. Ondot Systems, Inc., (2) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and (3) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.
• Three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Actavis in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., the second by CBS in Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., and the third by Biomarin in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 19 different petitions this week.

Here are the details.

On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from the attorneys for two leading technology giants in the long-running software copyright case, Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. At issue is the availability of copyright protection for software interfaces, in particular Oracle’s Java SE declarations, and Google’s copying of such code that it contends is fair use.

• Showdown Looms on Cost Accounting Standards – Boeing can challenge a Federal Acquisition Regulation provision regarding Cost Accounting Standards thanks to a recent Federal Circuit decision.
• A $75 Million Drug Sale Lands Teva a $235 Million Penalty – The Federal Circuit awarded $235 million to Glaxosmithkline for Teva’s sale of a generic version of a Glaxosmithkline heart medicine.

Here’s the latest.

• Inventor Group Wants To Halt All New PTAB Reviews – U.S. Inventor has filed an injunction request seeking to bar the PTAB from instituting any new patent reviews. However, unlike several tech companies who want to diminish the authority of the USPTO director to deny institution, U.S. Inventor hopes to enhance it.
• Biogen’s Patent Loss Spotlights Need to Stress Invention Novelty – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision emphasizes the need for patent applicants, particularly when seeking to patent biological drug products, to distinguish their inventions from those previously introduced to the public.
• Federal Circuit: Patent Directed to Physician to Patient Communication System Abstract, Invalid – The Federal Circuit issued an opinion earlier this month, which addressed both Section 101 patent eligibility and recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

Here’s the latest.

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

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Bedgear, LLC and Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by B.E. Technology in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One amicus brief was filed with the Court in Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. by Lambeth Magnetic Structures.
• Finally, three waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in (1) Robles v. Wilkie, (2) Golden v. United States, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.

Here are the details.

• A Patent Crisis—Supreme Court Can Help America Compete Again – Former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, Randall Rader, discusses the need for a strong patent system in the United States in light of recent decisions and international competition.
• Federal Circuit Shoots Down Apple Bid to Strike Certain Voip-Pal Claims Upheld by PTAB – The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding of validity of Voip-Pal’s patent and upheld the sanctions granted against Apple in Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pail.com, Inc.
• IP at the Supreme Court: 2 Big Cases and a Lot of Long Shots – With the Supreme Court already granting certiorari to one case appealed from the Federal Circuit, other cases may also warrant review by the nation’s highest court.

Here’s the latest.

• Why Patents Can Matter In Trade Secret Cases – A recent petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court in Acer America Corp. v. Intellisoft, Ltd., highlights the critical interrelationship between trade secret law and patent law.
• Fed. Circ. Won’t Revive Presidio’s Capacitor Patent Claims – The Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case involving a capacitor, described by the Federal Circuit as “a device that stores energy in an electric field when connected to an electrical circuit.”
• Supreme Court to consider all sides’ cert petitions in Arthrex patent-law case – Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court meets for its first conference since the summer recess. The agenda includes the controversial decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew.

Here’s the latest.

This month we highlight two scholarly articles related to the Federal Circuit.

• It’s Anti-Suit Injunctions All The Way Down – The Strange New Realities of International Litigation Over Standards-Essential Patents
• The TRIPS Agreement Article 73 Security Exceptions and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Here are the details.

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

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week in (1) Cochlear Corporation v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, (2) Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., and (3) Acer America Corporation v. Intellisoft, Ltd.
• Two briefs in response to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Rovi in Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and the second by Facebook in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by Phazzer in Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
• Lastly, two waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in Drevaleva v. United States and Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Here are the details.

• Apple and Uniloc to Spar at Federal Circuit Over ‘Judge-Shopping’ – Apple and Uniloc are scheduled to appear before the Federal Circuit for a rare oral argument on a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• PTAB Strategies and Insights – September 2020: Does the Federal Circuit Treat APA Challenges Differently if Brought by Petitioner vs. Patent Owner? Yes. – The Federal Circuit came to different conclusions when examining final written decisions appealed by a patent owner as opposed to a petitioner.

Here’s the latest.