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 how the government advised the Supreme Court that a pending patent case is a “‘suitable vehicle for providing greater clarity’ on when an invention can be patented”;
• another article addressing the Federal Circuit’s “focus on using mandamus to compel transfer of cases”; and
• a third article explaining how the “Federal Circuit’s newest judge continues to hear Delaware cases” after his promotion.

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, “[o]nce thought to be a toss-up, the Federal Circuit is now ruling for appellees nearly twice as often as appellants”;
• another article addressing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “shows [a] less rigid analysis” of corroboration of inventorship; and
• a third article highlighting several pending Supreme Court petitions in patent cases, including more than one that “raise important questions on Section 101 patent eligibility jurisprudence.”

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

• an article discussing an amicus brief filed by a group of intellectual property professors in support of an en banc petition in a patent case raising questions about claim construction;
• another article addressing a recent Federal Circuit decision that “clarifies infringement analysis”; and
• a third article detailing how the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to review a Federal Circuit patent case.

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 recent Federal Circuit opinion “stands as an important warning” to patent holders who send notice letters;
• another article addressing the Federal Circuit’s split in an “unusual” case concerning the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• a third article addressing a recent Federal Circuit case that “clarifies the scope of incorporation by reference” in government contracts.

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

• an article arguing that in patent cases the Federal Circuit recently strayed from the Supreme Court’s “flexible approach to obviousness”;
• a blog post analyzing the Federal Circuit’s alleged “improper destabilization of settled res judicata principles” in patent cases;
• another article discussing how the “Federal Circuit has provided uniformity” regarding the proper interpretation of the America Invents Act’s estoppel provision; and
• a third article identifying primary takeaways from a recent Federal Circuit ruling addressing patent law’s experimental-use doctrine and on-sale bar.

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 determined that an “Apple Inc lawsuit . . . over Wi-Fi messaging can move forward in California”;
• another article detailing how “the CAFC concluded that the district court’s constructions incorrectly limited claim scope to a preferred embodiment and rendered certain dependent claims superfluous”; and
• yet another article explaining how, in Intel Corp v XMTT, Inc., “Intel was dealt a loss in its challenge of a computer memory patent when the Federal Circuit on Tuesday refused to consider the tech company’s arguments that the court said were ‘clearly inconsistent’ with what it presented to 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 discussing whether, in the context of the Patent Act, “obviousness is a straightforward inquiry”;
• an article assessing the Federal Circuit and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s approaches to patent subject matter eligibility;
• another blog post analyzing the primary takeaways from a recent Federal Circuit patent case addressing damages; and
• another article explaining how “AT&T Corp. survived a patent infringement claim . . . after the Federal Circuit found there wasn’t sufficient evidence that the telephone service provider’s remote terminals were in locations covered by the patents.”

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

• an article explaining how “St Jude Medical will have to defend claims that its catheters infringe[d] a company’s revived patent”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “affirm[ed] — on a procedural technicality — a precedential decision of a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that granted a motion to amend claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding”; and
• yet another article assessing how “Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.‘s best hope for escaping a $42 million patent infringement verdict won by Seagen Inc. may lie in its separate administrative challenge to Seagen’s patent.”

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 how “[c]ourts continue to struggle with their use of evidence for claim construction” in patent cases;
• an article detailing how the “Senate’s April 5 confirmation of Winston & Strawn partner Kathi Vidal means the agency can finally make movement on pressing policy issues that have been in limbo while the leadership post remained vacant for more than a year”; and
• another article analyzing how the the Federal Circuit recently “criticized, but left intact, limits on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can devise reasons to reject requests to amend 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 how “Kathi Vidal, President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, was confirmed by the Senate”;
• another article discussing how, “[a]s part of the ongoing confirmation process for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) submitted . . . 35 IP-related questions . . . and 15 antitrust questions” to Judge Jackson and how Judge Jackson has responded to those questions; and
• a third article identifying major trends in Patent Trial and Appeal Board trials.