FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing a “rare Federal Circuit en banc patent case” set for oral argument next week that “threatens” the current test for obviousness with respect to design patents; and
• an article indicating “the Federal Circuit could make the [International Trade Commission] a more appealing forum.”

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

• an article discussing attorneys for Judge Newman “urg[ing] a lower court in Washington . . . to allow her lawsuit to proceed against colleagues who suspended her from the bench last year”;
• a similar article highlighting how Judge Cooper “promised an order ‘sooner rather than later’ on what’s next for Judge Newman and the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article about a Federal Circuit ruling “that a patent suit against Honeywell International Inc. must play out on the conglomerate’s home turf of North Carolina.”

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 recently filed petition for a writ of certiorari of a “May 2023 decision by the Federal Circuit that invalidated claims . . . covering method of treating Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder”;
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling “that a Georgia inventor’s car remote-starter patent that his company alleges was infringed by BMW AG is invalid in light of two previously published inventions”; and
• an article about how the Federal Circuit “denied Charles Bertini’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to decide his trademark cancellation case against Apple, 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 Apple’s plan to “introduce watches without the blood oxygen monitoring feature” after the Federal Circuit “lifted a stay of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s ban on the original products”; and
• an article highlighting how “[f]our 2023 opinions concerning claim construction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit offer lessons on how patent prosecution can affect later litigation.”

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

• an article highlighting how “Apple cannot sell two flagship Apple Watch models in the U.S. . . . after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the company can no longer sell Series 9 and Ultra 2 Apple Watches with the blood oxygen feature”;
• an article about “an amicus brief filed Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” where a “federal judge in Delaware defended his authority to compel live testimony”; and
• an article discussing an “attorney representing Amazon at the Federal Circuit test[ing] the patience of U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Chen on Friday by speaking over another judge and refusing to answer direct questions.”

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

• an article discussing skepticism from Federal Circuit judges over “arguments that the former CEO of Trading Technologies International is entitled to nearly $1 billion damages because IBG LLC infringed the company’s dynamic trading display patents”;
• an article about the Supreme Court’s denial of “a petition asking the High Court to clarify patent eligibility jurisprudence under Section 101 since its 2014 ruling in Alice“; and
• a similar blog post discussing the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in three patent cases and commenting that this “means that the court is unlikely to hear a patent case this term.”

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 “Apple and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have told the U.S. Supreme Court to reject [an] appeal claiming that Apple was wrongly allowed into patent challenges that doomed a $576 million judgment”; and
• a blog post highlighting the Federal Circuit’s “first precedential patent decision of 2024.”

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

• an article discussing arguments from the “[l]awyers for the Federal Circuit . . . that a lawsuit filed by 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman seeking reinstatement should be dismissed”;
• an article highlighting “the biggest patent rulings of 2023,” including how “the Federal Circuit . . . suspended one of its own judges. . . and the Federal Circuit vacated a huge infringement verdict”; and
• an article noting how the Supreme Court “denied a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Court to reconsider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June ruling that the petitioner said signals an expanding practice of reversing agency decisions in lieu of remand.”

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

• an article discussing a recent Federal Circuit judicial council brief that “pushes back on Judge Newman’s arguments that her colleagues should have recused themselves from the investigation, that she should have been allowed on the council and that the council was acting beyond its judicial duties by acting as an administrative body”; and
• another article about a recent decision from the Patent and Trademark Office “that limits the effect of a 2015 Federal Circuit decision regarding the dates of earlier inventions cited in patent applications.”

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 “Federal Circuit recently weighed in on the application of the [Administrative Procedure Act] in the context of two different [inter partes review proceedings;” and
• an article about a Supreme Court petition asking the Court “to reverse a ruling that made its patents ineligible for protection because they are too abstract.”