FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in pro se cases; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case; and one brief in opposition was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one amicus brief was filed in the only pending en banc case, which raises questions related to the President’s removal powers. The Federal Circuit also denied one petition for en banc review raising a question related the Hatch-Waxman Act. Here are the details. 

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an opinion piece suggesting the Supreme Court “wrongly declined to hear U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman’s” case challenging her suspension from service on the Federal Circuit;
• a blog post arguing that, “[w]hen the Senate Judiciary Committee examines the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act . . . this week, lawmakers won’t simply be debating patent law”;
• a blog post discussing how “[t]wo more Section 101 petitions are taking shape at the Supreme Court”; and
• a blog post examining how a recent Federal Circuit “case reaffirms that a patentee’s perceived preference to draft a claim to read on a commercial embodiment . . . may weigh in favour of construing a claim to cover such an embodiment.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Satius Holding, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Satius appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an ex parte reexamination. In the appeal, Satius presents questions related to claim construction and prosecution history disclaimer. Chief Judge Moore and Judges Lourie and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to damages and the Administrative Procedure Act. One new response was filed in a case raising a question related to appellate procedure. One new amicus brief was filed in a case raising questions related to enablement and written description. Finally, one petition was denied in a case raising a question related to inventorship. Here are the details.

This week (and, as it turns out, next Monday) is Court week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene nine panels to consider 54 cases. Of the 54 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 37. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief and in one case the court appointed amicus curiae to present an oral argument. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases. As for pending petitions, since our last update, one new petition was filed in a pro se case; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case; and the Court denied six petitions in four patent cases, one trademark case, and one more pro se case. Here are the details.

In one case being argued at the Federal Circuit in July the court appointed counsel as amicus curiae. This case is Loomis v. Collins, a pro se veterans case. In it, Loomis appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The case presents questions related to educational assistance benefits and the validity of a regulation issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, three new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to appellate procedure and the non-obviousness requirement. Also one new response brief responds to a petition raising a question related to damages. Here are the details. 

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a patent case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. In this case, Hikma Pharmaceuticals challenged a Federal Circuit decision addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent infringement. The Federal Circuit had rejected “characterizations that a reversal in this case would ‘effectively eviscerate section viii carve-outs’” of the Hatch-Waxman Act and held that Amarin had “plausibly pleaded that Hikma . . . induced infringement.” In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. This is our summary of the Supreme Court’s opinion.