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 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.

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 pending trademark case involving a rejection of a trademark for being “deceptively misdescriptive”;
• an article highlighting how, in a patent case, “former CAFC Chief Judge, Paul Michel, . . . filed an amicus brief . . . asking the full [Federal Circuit] to resolve ‘unintentional confusion and conflict’ in the court’s obviousness jurisprudence”; and
• another article discussing “a challenge to the $185 million in legal fees a U.S. court awarded . . . in an Affordable Care Act class action that secured $3.7 billion for health insurers.”

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 gave “the Patent Trial and Appeal Board more freedom to identify its own unpatentability grounds that could block requests to amend a patent”;
• an article explaining how the Federal Circuit recently reversed and remanded “a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that . . . claims were invalid as indefinite”;
• another article detailing how the “Federal Circuit is going to take a look at U.S. District Judge Alan Albright’s first decision invalidating a patent on eligibility grounds”; and
• yet another article assessing how “[t]he Arthrex appointments clause case is back before the [Federal Circuit] . . . calling into question not only Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions, but also hundreds of thousands of patents issued in the last 14 months.”

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 has made a rare criticism of a precedential opinion panel (POP) decision” issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
• another article providing insight into how “some sizable jury awards from last year are now providing the Federal Circuit an opportunity to clarify important points of damages law”; and
• a third article detailing how the Federal Circuit recently overruled a lower court decision that parts of three patents were invalid for indefiniteness.

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 the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas, which dismissed a complaint based on ineligibility of the asserted patent claims;
• another article detailing how the Federal Circuit released a corrected decision that provides clarity on the question of estoppel based on inter partes review; and
• a third article assessing how “[e]x parte reexaminations have re-emerged as an increasingly important component of patent litigation and licensing negotiations.”

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 “Zaxcom has petitioned the court for rehearing en banc, arguing that the CAFC’s precedent . . . ‘confused the law’ regarding a rebuttable presumption of nexus”;
• another article discussing how “[a] split US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that US chemical company BASF is able to be sued” for alleged infringement; and
• a blog post discussing how, “[i]n a new petition for writ of certiorari, Cisco asks for guidance on whether enhanced damages under Section 284 require ‘egregious infringement behavior’ or instead is it enough to find ‘deliberate or intentional infringement.’”