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 discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision that “provides a lesson into the importance of carefully drafting—and understanding—the scope of licensing terms, especially covenants not to sue”; and
• an article about how a “Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel . . . denied an Oklahoma landowner’s bid to overturn a lower court’s ruling that the federal government isn’t liable for flooding damage to her property due to activity at a nearby Cherokee Nation casino.”

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

• an article discussing “what’s at stake in pending Federal Circuit design patent case”;
• an article highlighting a recent notice by the USPTO published in the Federal Register “providing updated guidance for agency decision-makers on proper determinations of obviousness under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.”; and
• an article about how “[t]he Federal Circuit reversed a district court judge’s dismissal of a breach-of-contract lawsuit against MasterCard International Inc. over a licensing agreement the company entered with patent owner AlexSam Inc.”

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

• an article discussing how a “consortium of patent lawyers and small startups are sounding the alarm at the Federal Circuit over a ruling last year”; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit ruling that “Intel failed to show that Koniklijke Philips NV’s patent . . . was obvious, and thus invalid, based on several previously published inventions.”

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

• an article discussing how the Supreme Court “justices declined to review the Federal Circuit’s holding that the one-year window for filing inter partes review petitions does not apply to companies seeking to join a challenge brought by another company”; and
• an article presenting “post-argument thoughts” on the Federal Circuit’s recent “en banc oral argument to reconsider the obviousness test for design patents.”

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

• an article highlighting the “Federal Circuit’s sua sponte order informing future litigants that evading briefing limits by incorporating much larger documents will likely result in sanctions”; and
• an article discussing how “the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment” in a case involving “technology used in Facebook’s search interface.”

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

• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s ruling in In re Chestek PLLC that the “US Patent and Trademark Office’s process for making a rule that US applications must disclose a US domicile address . . . didn’t violate federal law”; and
• an article noting how the Federal Circuit judges “split on [the] indefiniteness analysis for [an] identity theft patent.”

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

• an article discussing how the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Conduct and Disability’s “rare decision affirming the suspension of a federal appeals court judge unleashed a flurry of calls to change the statutory framework for evaluating judges for potential disability and misconduct”;
• an article noting how Judge Newman “complained . . . that she had been taken off an email list that goes to all judges”; and
• another article highlighting how “[p]arts of Judge Pauline Newman’s lawsuit challenging her suspension from hearing cases on the Federal Circuit will move forward, though its prospects are dim after a federal judge denied her preliminary relief.”

Today, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion and order in Judge Newman’s lawsuit, which asserts facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and the statutory provision creating circuit judicial councils. The opinion and order denies Judge Newman’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have “prohibit[ed] Defendants from continuing her suspension from new case assignments and from proceeding with any further disciplinary proceedings until the matter is transferred to the judicial council of another circuit.” The opinion and order also grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss all but three of Judge Newman’s claims based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Here is the introduction to the opinion and order.

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

• an article discussing how “Judge Pauline Newman on Wednesday lost a bid to persuade the federal court system’s governing body to review her suspension from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit”;
• a similar article about how “Judge Pauline Newman . . . faces a difficult path to getting reinstated without complying with an investigation into her mental fitness”; and
• an article highlighting how the Federal Circuit “met to consider a design patent appeal en banc for the first time in more than 15 years.”

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

• an article arguing the “full Federal Circuit should reject an ill-conceived request by major players in the repair parts industry” after yesterday’s arguments in a design patent case; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit agreed “with a lower court’s conclusion that claims in an Eolas Technologies Inc. 1994 web patent weren’t actually valid, handing a win to Google, Amazon and Walmart.”