FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit granted en banc rehearing to address a question concerning standing at the Court of Federal Claims to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement of a government contract. Additionally, an amicus brief has been filed in a pending en banc patent case raising a question concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. There are no updates regarding pending petitions. Here are the details.

Late Friday the Federal Circuit granted a petition for en banc rehearing in Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States, a government contract case originally decided by the Court of Federal Claims. The question presented relates to standing under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). That statutory provision grants the Court of Federal Claims “jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting . . . to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” The question presented is: “Who can be an interested party objecting to any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1)?” Here is the full text of Friday’s order granting en banc rehearing. We will report more on this case later this week.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions in two cases raising the same question related to claim construction. Additionally, the court denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two cases raising questions about eligibility and enablement of prior art. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. This week’s only update is that there is a new response to a petition raising questions related to the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. Here are the details.

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 the Federal Circuit’s review of the grant of a motion for attorneys’ fees. Additionally, the court invited a response to a petition raising questions regarding the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. Finally, the court denied a petition presenting a question regarding the effect of a remand overturning a holding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on which a patent owner relied in drafting amended claims. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new amicus briefs supporting a petition raising questions regarding the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. The court also denied a petition for en banc rehearing raising questions about inducement of infringement and skinny-labeling. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions in two cases raising a question about whether an undisputed feature of prior art may serve as the basis for patent eligibility and questions about enablement of prior art. The court also denied a petition for en banc rehearing raising questions about attorneys’ fees. Here are the details.

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.