FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions have been filed. One of the two new petitions raises multiple issues regarding patent ownership and a district court’s authority to prohibit parties from sharing part of a claim construction with a jury. The other new petition raises questions concerning expert testimony to prove infringement of a means plus function element, claim construction, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court is reviewing whether a district court erred in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses,” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and devoid of connection to the patent’s incremental improvement to the art.” This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order sua sponte granting en banc review of an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. In the order, the Federal Circuit requests new briefing related to the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on the interpretation of statutory provisions governing actions of the Office of Personnel Management. Notably, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruled Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which required courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous language in statutes meant for implementation by those agencies. Here is the introduction to the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in one of the two pending en banc cases. With respect to pending petitions, two new petitions have been filed and the court denied one petition. One of the new petitions raises a question regarding claim construction; the other new petition raises a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can be the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. The petition that was denied raised a question regarding apportionment of damages for patent infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Two new petitions have been filed. One raises questions concerning an appeal related to obviousness, and the other comes in a pro se case. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition raising questions concerning after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements. The court also denied two petitions, one concerning what patents should be listed in the Orange Book and the other concerning the burden of proof regarding enablement in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in an en banc patent case, EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court will consider whether a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses resulted in an artificially inflated damages award. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court scheduled oral argument in one of the court’s two en banc cases. As for pending petitions for en banc rehearing, an amicus brief was filed in support of a petition raising a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements, and the court denied a pro se litigant’s petition. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. As for granted petitions, a reply brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. As for pending petitions, a pro se litigant filed a petition, a response was filed to a petition presenting a question related to waiver of alternative grounds for affirmance, and the court denied a petition presenting a question regarding vicarious liability for direct infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Two new petitions have been filed. One raises questions related the substantial evidence standard for review of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the test for analogous art. The other raises a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition raising a question related to what patents must be listed in the Orange Book, along with three new amicus briefs supporting the petition in that same case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Two new amicus briefs were filed in a pending en banc case concerning standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. Additionally, one new petition was filed, presenting a question regarding apportionment of damages for patent infringement. Finally, the court denied an en banc petition raising a question regarding claim construction. Here are the details.