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 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.”

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 Federal Circuit panel concerning whether “patents, which relate to data compression and storage,” are too abstract; and
• another article about another “Federal Circuit panel . . . discuss[ing] when a party may look behind a legal challenger to discover the ‘real party in interest.’”

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 “[a] Federal Circuit panel on Tuesday went in circles trying to lock down how a party can disavow part of an exhibit attached to its complaint”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit holding “raised tariffs on imports of steel derivatives such as nails and fasteners didn’t exceed the scope of the president’s authority”; and
• a third article about “[c]hipmaking giant Intel Corp. . . . settl[ing] a patent lawsuit brought by wireless technology developer ParkerVision 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 how the “Federal Circuit refused . . . to rehear a challenge to a Delaware judge’s probe into the financing of patent litigation”;
• another article about “Sanofi and Regeneron on Friday urg[ing] the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Amgen’s arguments that it deserves broad patent coverage on cholesterol drugs”; and
• a blog post examining the reasons why the “Federal Circuit has ordered [Google’s] case moved out of the Western District of Texas (Waco) to the Northern District of California.”

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 Federal Circuit decision finding “[a] Texas federal court ‘clearly abused its discretion’ when declining to transfer a patent-infringement lawsuit against Google LLC”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit “vacat[ing] what it called an ‘extraordinarily high’ legal-fee award of $185 million”; and
• a third article about how a “Virginia federal judge issued a bench trial ruling Monday that ImmunoGen is not entitled to a patent on a cancer treatment . . . after the Federal Circuit vacated the court’s previous decision and ordered a trial.”