FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to claim construction. That’s it. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case, the appellant filed his opening en banc brief. In it, he argues on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to the critical date of prior art. The court also received a response to a petition raising questions related to the written description requirement. Finally, the court denied a petition in a case raising questions related to obviousness-based inherency of claim limitations. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied two petitions for rehearing raising questions related to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, grounds for inter partes review, and the ability of a Federal Circuit panel to nullify or render advisory an earlier judgment of the court. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to the written description requirement. The court also received two amicus briefs supporting rehearing in the same case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the ability of a Federal Circuit panel to nullify or render advisory an earlier judgment of the court. The court also received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in a case raising questions related to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the grounds for inter partes review. Finally, the court denied a petition in a case raising questions related to the court’s grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus to order transfer of a case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the government filed its en banc reply brief. The court also received a new petition in a case raising a question related to the written description requirement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to the ability of a Federal Circuit panel to nullify or render advisory an earlier judgment of the court. The court also denied a petition raising questions related to transfers of cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the court received two amicus briefs in support of the appellee, a veteran. The court also received two new petitions raising questions related to obviousness-based inherency of claims, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and the grounds for inter partes review proceedings. Finally, the court denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Last week, we reported that the Federal Circuit issued a relatively rare opinion granting panel rehearing in a patent case, Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. In the original, now-vacated opinion, a panel comprised of Judges O’Malley and Linn, with Chief Judge Moore dissenting, indicated the court would affirm a district court’s judgment that claims are not invalid for inadequate written description. Notably, however, a different panel ruled on the motion for panel rehearing. In particular, with Judge O’Malley’s retirement from the court, Judge Hughes joined the panel. The new panel, and in particular Chief Judge Moore (no longer dissenting) and Judge Hughes, with Judge Linn now dissenting, granted the petition for panel rehearing, vacated the panel’s prior decision, and, in the new opinion, now reverse the district court’s judgment. Perhaps most importantly, the changed outcome reflects a difference of view regarding application of the written description requirement. Here is an update on the case.