FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. While no new petitions were filed, waivers of the right to respond were filed in a patent case and a pro se case. Additionally, the Court denied a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court has denied three petitions for en banc rehearing. These petitions raised questions concerning the substantial evidence standard for review of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the test for analogous prior art, after-arising technologies, the written description and enablement requirements, and waiver of alternative grounds for affirmance. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. With respect to these cases, since our last update we highlight five new opinions, four in patent cases and one in a government contract case; two new argument recaps, one in a trademark case and one in a trade case; and three new cases, one a design patent case and two utility patent cases. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a report discussing how the neurosurgeon who testified that Judge Newman is “fit to serve . . . responded to a barrage of criticisms aimed at his analysis”;
• an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently reviewed a decision of the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent and Trademark Office for the first time;
• a piece reporting how the Supreme Court recently denied “several high-profile IP petitions, including two that touch on the [Federal Circuit]’s controversial use of one-word affirmances under Rule 36”; and
• an article recounting how “[a]dministrative judges with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should prepare themselves for layoffs, according to an email from Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case and a pro se case. The Court also received waivers of the right to respond in five pro se cases; briefs in opposition in two patent cases; a supplemental brief in a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two new amicus briefs in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and two cases addressing Rule 36. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions have been filed. One of the two new petitions raises multiple issues regarding patent ownership and a district court’s authority to prohibit parties from sharing part of a claim construction with a jury. The other new petition raises questions concerning expert testimony to prove infringement of a means plus function element, claim construction, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court is reviewing whether a 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.” This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article arguing that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “may make defending patent infringement claims more challenging, time-consuming and expensive, but it also has unwittingly complicated similar patent infringement proceedings involving the same patents and their appeals”;
• a blog post suggesting that, in a recent decision related to agency deference, the Federal Circuit’s “approach to the analysis [was] wrong”;
• a piece reporting how “Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has decided to end all current appointments to both the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC), effective immediately”; and
• an article suggesting a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “expands which intellectual property (IP) owners can seek relief before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to block the import of infringing products into the U.S.”

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., a patent case that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed three written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in related inter partes review proceedings. The PTAB found all claims of three patents unpatentable over certain asserted prior art. AliveCor challenged the PTAB’s findings, including by arguing that the IPR petitioner, Apple, violated its discovery obligations. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Hughes and Linn, affirmed the PTAB’s obviousness determination and declined to address AliveCor’s discovery challenge because it failed to raise the issue at the PTAB. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in one of the two pending en banc cases. With respect to pending petitions, two new petitions have been filed and the court denied one petition. One of the new petitions raises a question regarding claim construction; the other new petition raises a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can be the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. The petition that was denied raised a question regarding apportionment of damages for patent infringement. Here are the details.