FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article about “[r]ival drugmakers Viatris and Merck . . . settl[ing] their yearslong dispute over patents on brand name diabetes treatments”;
• another article about a petition to the Supreme Court asking “the high court to review an appeals court’s decision that patents can only be issued to human inventors”; and
• a blog post about another Supreme Court petition “ask[ing] the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Ingenio was estopped from challenging the validity of patent claims that were denied institution during inter partes review (IPR) validity proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”

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

• a blog post about how “the Federal Circuit . . . revived an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the Fintiv decision on discretionary denial” of petitions for inter partes review;
• an article about the Federal Circuit also “reviv[ing] a patent-infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc.” after a stipulation of non-infringement based on a district court’s claim constructions; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit opinion “determining that the PTAB required too much evidence to establish a motivation to combine prior art.”

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

• a blog post about the United States government’s statement of interest in the patent infringement case involving COVID-19 vaccines; and
• an article about the U.S. International Trade Commission “bann[ing] imports of video-streaming fitness devices made by Peloton Interactive Inc and iFit Inc.”

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

• an article about “[b]iotechnology giant Amgen . . . arguing that Sanofi is a walking contradiction when it comes to the patent challenger’s stance on enablement requirements”;
• another article about a Federal Circuit decision finding “Google LLC must litigate a patent infringement lawsuit brought by telecom startup Flypsi Inc. in Waco, Texas, rather than San Francisco”; and
• a third article about “how to handle AI inventions from a policy perspective.”

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

• an article about a bill that “would stop pharma companies from using lawsuits to block the sale of a competing generic drug”;
• another article about a party “ask[ing] the US Supreme Court to clarify its rule for when an idea is considered abstract and thus not eligible to be patented”; and
• a blog post about “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal . . . correcting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on its approach to the ‘compelling merits’ analysis.”

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

• an article about the Supreme Court “declin[ing] to consider an . . . argument that a ‘dangerous’ precedent will give big tech defendants a license to build inaccurate models of technology that can be used to wipe out patents asserted against them”;
• another article about a case involving the overturning of “a $308.5 million patent verdict against Apple”; and
• a third article explaining that “[a] potential import ban on the Apple Watch is still on the table.”

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

• an article about the Federal Circuit deciding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “must take a second look at a video-streaming technology patent challenged by Netflix Inc. and Hulu LLC”;
• a blog post about the potential effects of an upcoming Supreme Court case on patents; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit decision affirming claim construction rulings by the Eastern District of Texas.

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

• an article discussing why “inventors [should be] wary of exhibiting their inventions too early”;
• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding a district court’s “preliminary injunction barring the owner of patents . . . from communicating to its customers that a competitor was infringing its patents” was an abuse of its discretion; and
• another article about a former Sirius XM executive’s “challenge to an order compelling her to testify in a patent dispute” and the conclusion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the Federal Circuit held jurisdiction over an appeal from the order.

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

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding “an isolated form of vitamin B3″ to be “unpatentable subject matter under Section 101”;
• an article about Optis Cellular urging the Federal Circuit “not to reverse a Texas federal jury’s nine-figure infringement judgment against Apple, Inc.”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit “reviv[ing] a long-running infringement lawsuit Bard brought against Pennsylvania-based Medical Components Inc.”

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

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision “clarifying the requirements for the disclosure of technology that is ready for patenting at a public event to qualify as being ‘in public use’”;
• an article about a Federal Circuit ruling finding “federal workers are generally not entitled to extra pay for being exposed to COVID-19 through their jobs”; and
• another article about the ramifications of “US Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal’s reinstatement of two companies she’d removed from high-profile [inter partes review] patent challenges.”