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 detailing how in a patent case the Federal Circuit “affirmed a district court’s finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285” based on inequitable conduct;
• another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the “potential for decision maker bias to occur”;
• a report explaining the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of “a Texas federal court’s decision to clear HP and other companies . . . of infringing several printing patents” and an “attorney fee order”; and
• an article assessing how Apple “won . . . support . . . for its effort to get the Federal Circuit to rehear [a patent] ownership dispute.”

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

• a blog post assessing the Federal Circuit’s “reject[ion] [of the] argument that . . . PTAB Judges have an improper financial interest in instituting AIA proceedings”;
• an article discussing how General Motors, in a recent Federal Circuit decision, “beat back a challenge by computer-component maker Micro Mobio Corp” in a trademark dispute;
• another blog post providing an update on a case “in which the court concluded that the USPTO cannot recover expert witness fees in actions brought under 35 U.S.C. § 145”; and
• an article detailing how “Nokia Oyj, Sprint Corp., and Verizon Communications Inc. are cleared of allegations that their products infringe wireless network patents owned by Traxcell Technologies LLC.”

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

• an article focusing on the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision overruling a district court’s conclusion that [patent] claims were directed to ineligible subject matter;
• a blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that a forum selection clause did not apply to inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
• an article addressing how the Federal Circuit found that “claims of a patent covering an artificial heart valve were erroneously held to be unpatentable by the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board”; and
• a blog post discussing how “the Federal Circuit affirmed an exclusion order by the [International Trade] Commission” in a patent case.

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 the Federal Circuit “has been tearing through mandamus petitions on the issue of inconvenient venue”; and
• an article analyzing the Federal Circuit’s recent reversal of a lower court’s finding of patent ineligibility.

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, “in many IP cases involving foreign defendants,” circumventing Article 5 of the Hague Convention may provide a “sense of victory [that] might be premature”;
• an article addressing “whether portfolio patent licenses can be sufficiently comparable to a single-patent license for the purposes of supporting a patent damages verdict”;
• another blog post detailing the Federal Circuit’s clarification of “the distinction between conduct warranting enhanced damages and the lesser standard of willful infringement”; and
• a report about how the Federal Circuit “revived a military security contractor’s bid for reimbursement of a penalty charged by Afghanistan’s government.”

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

• a blog post explaining how a company that was “denied institution on three inter partes review (IPR) petitions . . . could not simply ‘repackage’ arguments raised in its IPR petition to challenge the same patent via ex parte reexamination”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit keeps on laying down rules of the road for U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas when it comes to transferring cases to California”;
• a post discussing whether a recent Federal Circuit opinion “may be hinting that willful blindness isn’t enough, by itself, for willful [patent] infringement”; and
• another blog post noting tension between how the Federal Circuit reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and its own practice with respect to Rule 36 summary affirmances.

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

• an article predicting how a recent Federal Circuit decision [will] likely provide a route for judges and plaintiffs in patent cases to circumvent an international treaty that creates hurdles when serving complaints on foreign defendants”;
• an article analyzing “the unsettled and contentions nature of [patent] infringement in the skinny-label context”; and
• an article report discussing how last week the Federal Circuit issued an order “forcing U.S. District Judge Alan Albright to move [a] patent dispute . . . from his court in Waco, Texas, . . . to Northern California.”

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

• a blog post arguing that “the Federal Circuit should release all dispositive orders on its website, not just decisions labeled as ‘opinions’ or summary affirmances under Rule 36”;
• an article discussing how “[p]atent owners are looking to past [forum selection clauses in] agreements they signed with the companies they are accusing of infringement to head off challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• another blog post discussing an opinion addressing whether “ATJs [Administrative Trademark Judges] [are] unconstitutionally appointed principal officers like their APJ cousins”; and
• an article observing “that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8–the rule setting forth the pleading standards applicable to civil actions in federal court–in patent cases is hard to reconcile with modern U.S. Supreme Court precedent on Rule 8.”

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 outcome of a patent case originating at the International Trade Commission;
• a post discussing how the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that claims did not meet the requirement of eligibility; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit found that UGG AUSTRALIA was a valid trademark and not generic; and
• another article discussing how two recent Federal Circuit decisions may be “welcome news for federal employees at all agencies.”

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 the exclusion of expert testimony related to patent damages;
• an article indicating that recent Federal Circuit opinions have created “a blueprint for companies that want to get cases moved out of the nation’s fledgling patent-dispute hotbed”; and
• a report on the outcome of one of Apple’s challenges to patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.