FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In one of the two cases in which the court has granted en banc hearings, the National Organization of Veterans Advocates filed a reply brief. In cases with pending petitions for en banc consideration, highlights include responses to two petitions raising issues related to patent eligibility and inventorship, and a voluntary withdrawal of a petition related to venue.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to claim construction; new invitations to respond to petitions raising questions related to novelty and non-obviousness; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to design patent law and joinder in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in four patent cases raising questions related to remedies, transfer of venue, novelty, non-obviousness, and real-party-in-interest rules, as well as a response to a petition raising questions related to double-patenting. Here are the details.

This week there is little to report on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court denied one petition in a pro se case. That’s it!

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to patent claim construction and new invitations to respond to petitions in two cases raising questions related to claim preclusion and double patenting. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a sua sponte grant of an en banc hearing in a veterans case, the filing of the government’s brief in another veterans case in which the court previously granted an en banc hearing, a new petition raising questions related to patent claim construction, the denial of a petition raising questions related to injunctive relief, and the denial of a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Jeffrey A. Lefstin serves as a Professor of Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Prior to serving as a professor, he clerked for Federal Circuit Judge Raymond C. Clevenger III. Prof. Lefstin holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California San Francisco and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. He has written extensively and testified before Congress concerning the doctrine of patent eligibility.

Though described by the majority as “narrow,” the American Axle v. Neapco panel opinion sets forth two far-reaching expansions in the law of patent eligibility.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include modified opinions issued in two patent cases raising questions related to eligibility; new petitions filed in two cases raising questions related to obviousness; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to venue; and the denial of petitions in cases raising questions related to jurisdiction over an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, restriction requirements, and patent term adjustments. Here are the details.

As we previously reported, yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a modified panel opinion in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because Ariosa Diagnostics filed a petition for rehearing en banc. In the modified panel opinion, Judges Lourie and Moore maintained their original position, reversing the district court, which had held that the claims at issue were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. While the modified panel opinion did not change the holding of the court, it did more explicitly lay out the facts of the case that affected the court’s reasoning. Judge Reyna still dissented, but also issued a modified opinion. Here is a summary of the modified opinions.

As we previously reported, earlier today the Federal Circuit issued a modified opinion in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a case we have been tracking because American Axle & Manufacturing (AAM) petitioned for rehearing en banc. In the modified opinion, the court vacated a district court’s judgment that one independent patent claim and its dependent claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but affirmed the district court’s judgment of invalidity for lack of eligibility with respect to other claims. In addition to the modified panel opinion, the court issued an order denying a petition for rehearing en banc. The petition failed narrowly—by a vote of 6-6. Judges Dyk and Chen filed opinions concurring in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, while Judges Newman, Stoll, and O’Malley filed dissenting opinions. Here is a summary of the opinions, orders, and dissents.