FedCircuitBlog

As we reported yesterday, two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in April attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Ollnova Technolodies, Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, a patent case. In it, the patent owner Ollnova appeals a denial of requested prejudgment interest, and the accused infringer Ecobee cross-appeals the lower court’s decisions on jury instructions and multiple issues including eligibility, infringement, damages, and marking. This is our argument preview.

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

• an article reporting how recently a “panel of seven appellate and district court judges rejected Judge Pauline Newman’s effort to regain her position on the Federal Circuit, where the 98-year-old jurist was suspended by her colleagues”;
• a blog post highlighting how, on remand from the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “reaffirmed its decision that The Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (‘Broad’) were the first inventors of the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in eukaryotic cells”;
• an article discussing how the U.S. International Trade Commission “has launched more infringement investigations over patents and other intellectual property that have not been in dispute there before”; and
• an article commenting on how Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “faced sharp questions during an oversight hearing at the House of Representatives . . . on his office’s role in benefiting other Trump administration officials.”

Two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in April attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd, a patent case. In it, A.L.M. Holding appeals a district court’s conclusion that it lacked Article III standing. 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 were filed raising questions related to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert witness analyses related to disclosed structure for means-plus-function limitations, and patent eligibility; one new response was filed to a petition raising questions related to de minimis infringement; and the Federal Circuit denied a petition that raised a question related to eligibility. 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 the “Trump administration’s 10% stake in Intel Corp. may give plaintiffs in patent disputes a weapon against the company”;
• a blog post discussing how the “course of the proceedings involving the attempts to remove Judge Pauline Newman from the Federal Circuit is long and in many senses tragic”;
• a blog post observing how “the effective term for most U.S. patents is considerably shorter” than 20 years because “roughly 60% of all patentees now abandon their patents before the full term expires”; and
• an article noting how the “Federal Circuit’s rejection of all mandamus petitions asking it to rein in the way U.S. Patent and Trademark Office leadership is ​evaluating patent challenges cements the appeals court’s near-impossible standard for reviewing institution decisions.”

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, the respondent’s merits brief was filed. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a case addressing sanctions and two pro se cases. 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 in patent cases raising questions related to obviousness and apportionment; the court issued two invitations for responses in patent cases raising questions related to obviousness and de minimis infringement; and the court denied a petition raising questions related to judicial estoppel and appellate procedure. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in 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 seven recent opinions, one recent order, and two newly-identified cases. Here are the details.

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

• a blog post describing a petition at the Supreme Court as a battle with the Federal Circuit over “prosecution laches—and whether the doctrine even exists”;
• a blog post characterizing a Federal Circuit decision as “a masterclass in the consequences of acting as one’s own lexicographer” and “a stark reminder that definitions placed in patent specifications carry enormous weight”;
• an article reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office has “significantly expanded design patent protections with its guidance for claiming computer-generated images shown using virtual reality, holograms and similar technologies”; and
• a blog post emphasizing how the Supreme Court “left a variety of questions open” in its decision affirming the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Ligado Networks LLC v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the court considered an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Federal Claims presenting questions related to a radio license issued under the Communications Act. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Moore and Stoll, the panel affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. This is our summary of the opinion.