FedCircuitBlog

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 Federal Circuit “den[ying] a petition for writ of mandamus asking the Delaware district court to vacate an order to produce certain documents” related to third party funding in patent case; and
• an article about “Pfizer and BioNTech[‘s] . . . countersuit, demanding a jury trial and refuting Moderna’s claims of infringement” of patents related to COVID-19 vaccines.

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 “requirements for transparency regarding litigation funding and company and/or patent ownership” in the District of Delaware;
• an article about overcoming dismissals under Section 101 of the Patent Act; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s decision “reject[ing] a tech company’s bid to transfer a patent case it is facing out of . . . Waco.”

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 $948 million patent infringement verdict between Intel and VLSI Technology LLC;
• another article about a Federal Circuit decision finding a generic cancer drug infringes on “Abbvie’s Pharmacyclics and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Biotech . . . blockbuster cancer drug Imbruvica”; and
• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision “involving American National Manufacturing and Sleep Number Corp.”

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 “an appellate court ruling that many believe will be very damaging to the United States’ life sciences innovation sector”;
• an article about how “US Patent and Trademark Office rules for reducing the term of a patent survived a challenge at the Federal Circuit”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit recently “affirmed the constitutionality of the [manner of appointment of the] Merit Systems Protection Board’s administrative judges.”

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 opinion that found a “Scheduling Order . . . went too far in mandating additional substantive discovery and re-briefing” in light of a pending motion to transfer;
• an article about “[t]he fourth round of a multibillion-dollar dispute between Intel and VLSI”; and
• another blog post about how Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC “has the potential of shaking up [patent law’s] disclosure doctrine.”

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 petition for certiorari regarding a Federal Circuit decision addressing patent infringement and “skinny labels” on generic medications;
• another article about “[t]he Federal Circuit reviv[ing] patent licensing company Uniloc’s cases against Google”; and
• a third article about a Federal Circuit oral argument concerning “a Google patent application for parental control content filters.”

Today the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case raising questions related to the enablement requirement. Although the petitioner requested review of two distinct questions, the Court granted review only for the second question presented. That question asks “[w]hether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” Notably, the Supreme Court granted review of this question despite the contrary view of the Solicitor General. 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:

• an article about two recent rulings by the Federal Circuit that may “dent the number of Section 101 motions to dismiss that courts fully or partially grant each year”;
• another article about a Federal Circuit case that would “clear the way for a proposed generic” opioid drug; and
• a blog post about a decision in which the Federal Circuit held “the definition of a claim term in a patent incorporated by reference into the patents at issue does not dictate the definition of claims in the asserted patents.”

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 “vacat[ing] two separate preliminary injunction orders . . . against hoverboard products;”
• an article about amicus briefs supporting a petition for certiorari asking “the U.S. Supreme Court to do away with the Federal Circuit precedent barring infringement suits on patents the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has invalidated;” and
• another article about the “impact of Judge Garcia’s order” on the number of patent case filings in the Western 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 about how “FedEx . . . entered into an agreement to end a suit accusing it of infringing three search queries and database processing patents, less than a week after the Federal Circuit threw out a Texas federal judge’s refusal to transfer the suit to Tennessee”;
• a blog post about a Retired Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit suggesting the Federal Circuit should go en banc more often to clarify patent eligibility law; and
• another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s resolution of a veterans case that clarifies “the general rule of deference to an agency’s interpretation and a pro-veteran canon.”