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, 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.

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

• a blog post discussing how a recent “concurrence . . . provides more structure to the ‘skilled searcher conducting a diligent search’ estoppel test” related to inter partes review proceedings;
• an article highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit decision “suggests that plaintiffs may not have the final word” on whether “trade secret plaintiffs can try to channel cases into other courts of appeals by strategically withholding patent claims”;
• a blog post covering how the USPTO “issued a notice designating as precedential a Sua Sponte Director Review Order of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . decision granting institution in three inter partes review . . . proceedings”; and
• an article noting how, for “one day in July, Washingtonians will get access to an under-the-radar building steps away from the White House that’s filled with artifacts spanning American history.”

Here is an update on activity in patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight three recent opinions in cases raising questions related to patent eligibility, Article III standing, and infringement; one newly identified case raising a question related to infringement that attracted three amicus briefs; one recent oral argument in a case that raised questions related to sanctions, one new response brief in a case that raised questions related to patent eligibility, and one new principal and response brief in a case that raised questions related to sanctions and obviousness. 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 article suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “stressed that the inventorship listed on a patent demands perfection”;
• a blog post noting “a final rule in the Federal Register” explains that the USPTO “is ‘revising its practice of requiring additional information for delays in taking certain actions in patent applications and patents’”;
• an article discussing how the “Department of Justice has told the Federal Circuit that multibillion-dollar patent infringement litigation should be directed at the government, instead of Moderna”; and
• an article arguing “[m]any news outlets have struggled to accurately characterise the nature of the proceedings surrounding [Judge] Newman, leading to widespread misunderstanding among readers and legal observers alike.”

Recently the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ollnova Technologies, Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the patent owner, Ollnova, appeals a district court’s denial of requested prejudgment interest, and the accused infringer, Ecobee, cross-appeals the district court’s decisions on jury instructions and multiple issues including eligibility, infringement, damages, and marking. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Cunningham and Stark, the panel affirmed-in-part, dismissed-in-part, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case. This is our summary of the opinion.

One case being argued at the Federal Circuit in July attracted an amicus brief. This case is In re Satius Holding, Inc., a patent case. In it, 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. This is our argument preview.

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 four petitions in patent, trademark, and two more pro se cases. Here are the details.