FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new response to a petition raising questions concerning inducement of infringement and skinny-labeling along with the denial of five petitions raising questions related to issue preclusion and public disclosures under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a grant of en banc rehearing to address a damages experts’ reliance on comparable licenses. In addition, three new petitions raise questions concerning inducement of infringement and skinny-labeling, the effect of a remand overturning a holding on which Patent Owner relied in drafting its amended claims, the written description requirement, and obvious-type double patenting. Related to these new petitions, we also report on a new response, a new reply, and three new amicus briefs. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit granted a petition for en banc rehearing filed by Google in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, a patent case appealed after a jury trial in the Western District of Texas. Google asked the court to consider whether the 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.” Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new response to a petition raising questions relating to attorneys’ fees and the denial of a petition challenging the International Trade Commission’s authority related to patent infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions concerning public disclosures under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and issue preclusion. The court also denied two petitions. One raised a question related to the relationship of claim construction and unpatentability arguments in inter partes review proceedings. The other raised questions related to means-plus-function claims and patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court denied a petition raising issues related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new responses to three petitions raising questions relating to the authority of the International Trade Commission, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and the use of comparable licenses to calculate damages awards. The court also received two new amicus briefs supporting a petition relating to attorney fees and invited a response to the same petition. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising issues related to design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and personal jurisdiction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in cases raising questions about means-plus-function claims, patent eligibility, and attorneys’ fees. The court also denied a petition for en banc rehearing in a patent case raising questions about damages, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and procedure. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. A new petition was filed in a patent case raising questions concerning patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions concerning a court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses and claim construction matters. The court also denied two petitions raising questions related to claim construction and summary judgment. Here are the details.