FedCircuitBlog

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

• a piece outlining factors “behind the Patent Office head’s recent refusal to have the agency institute certain proceedings”;
• an article discussing two recent decisions that “show how parties can navigate the draconian effect of an exclusion order by pursuing the simultaneous paths of a Federal Circuit appeal and ancillary proceedings” at the International Trade Commission and before U.S. Customs & Border Protection “to adjudicate a design-around”;
• a blog post highlighting how a recent filing “shines a spotlight on a structural vulnerability in how post-grant review is functioning in practice”; and
• an article examining “the Federal Circuit’s evolving view of two key trade secrets issues: (1) whether information was readily ascertainable and therefore not a trade secret; and (2) how and when plaintiffs must sufficiently define their trade secrets.”

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

• a blog post arguing the Federal Circuit’s application of the judicial exceptions to patentability for software patents “has resembled less a coherent legal standard and more a series of freely-improvised opinions”;
• an article discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that “composition of matter claims covering engineered cells containing DNA from two different organisms chemically spliced together are not patent-ineligible natural phenomena”;
• a blog post addressing how the repeal of 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) “left an open question that the patent bar has been debating for more than a decade: can incorrect inventorship still be raised as a defense in patent litigation?”; and
• a blog post exploring a recent Federal Circuit decision in which the court “couldn’t determine whether the plaintiff suffered a physical taking of its radio license” because the parties had not adequately briefed whether a federal statute created “a private property right.”

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Volkswagen sought to have the Federal Circuit oder the United States Patent and Trademark Office to vacate its denial of a request for inter partes review. In the order, a panel of the court consisting of Judges Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes denied the petition. This is our summary of the order, which the panel issued per curiam.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, there has been no new activity since our last update. As for pending petitions, since our last update no new petitions have been filed in cases decided by the Federal Circuit; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a patent case addressing sanctions; and four amicus briefs were filed in another patent case addressing prosecution laches. 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 for en banc rehearing were filed raising questions related to eligibility and design-patent infringement; the court issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising questions related to obviousness and apportionment of damages; and a response was filed to a petition raising questions related to obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied one petition for en banc rehearing in a Lanham Act case. 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 observing how the Federal Circuit is “increasingly using the ‘plainly dissimilar’ formulation to affirm summary judgment of noninfringement in design patent cases”;
• a blog post reporting how “the Bar Association for the District of Columbia (BADC) filed an amicus brief supporting Judge Newman’s petition for cert currently before the U.S. Supreme Court”; and
• an article indicating “[p]atent challengers are increasingly ⁠relying on” ex parte reexaminations instead of inter partes reviews.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Apple appealed from a limited exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission barring the importation of Apple Watches found to infringe patents owned by Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Lourie and Reyna, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the International Trade Commission. This is our summary of the opinion.

This week (and next Monday) is Court week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 14 panels to consider 73 cases. Of the 73 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 55. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

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

• a blog post suggesting a recent Supreme Court copyright-law decision is a “troubling signal for the branded pharmaceutical company trying to hold a generic manufacturer liable for induced patent infringement” in the skinny label case decided by the Federal Circuit;
• a blog post highlighting a recent Federal Circuit “decision regarding recombinant DNA subject-matter eligibility”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision focusing on “whether . . . the patentee is entitled to damages reflecting foreign sales.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, seven amicus briefs were filed supporting the respondent. As for pending petitions, since our last update, five new petitions were filed in a patent case, another patent case addressing sanctions, a veterans disability benefits case, a government contracts case, and a pro se case; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and two pro se cases; a reply brief was filed in trademark case; two amicus briefs were filed in a patent case and Trade Act case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a patent case and two pro se cases. Here are the details.