FedCircuitBlog

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

• a first article concerning “the importance of adhering to local rules on initial disclosures in Delaware” after the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent case;
• a second article about Apple potentially escaping a $576 million judgment against it in a patent case; and
• a third article discussing the Federal Circuit’s reopening to the public yesterday.

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

• an article about the “plunge by nearly one-fifth” of patent related filings in Texas federal courts;
• another article about whether the Federal Circuit considers research tools to be covered by safe harbor provisions in the Hatch Waxman Act; and
• a blog post about personal jurisdiction in patent infringement cases.

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “did not improperly place the burden of persuasion for proving unpatentability of proposed substitute claims . . . on [the patent owner].”
• another article highlighting an upcoming Federal Circuit argument concerning constitutional standing; and
• a blog post discussing “the scope of ‘comparison prior art’ available for the ordinary observer infringement analysis” in design patent cases.

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

• an article discussing Moderna’s claim “that Pfizer and BioNTech unlawfully copied Moderna’s inventions”;
• an article summarizing the Federal Circuit recent ruling “that ‘plain meaning’ [of patent claims] cannot be interpreted in a vacuum”; and
• a third article highlighting the Federal Circuit’s decision to allow Apple and several other tech companies to “continue to import and sell their smartphone devices.”

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

• an article commenting on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision that “only humans can be considered inventors under current U.S. patent laws”;
• an article about how the Federal Circuit “let a Turkish steel pipe producer off the hook in a years-long anti-dumping duties dispute”; and
• a third article about the Federal Circuit’s role in litigation surrounding property flooding in Houston during Hurricane Harvey.

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 rejected a call to clarify the test for when an idea is too abstract to be eligible for a patent”;
• another article noting “the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)[‘s] . . . campaign against Senator Thom Tillis’ (R-NC) proposed ‘Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022;’” and
• a blog post highlighting how the Federal Circuit rescinded its “order relating to the unsealing of materials filed in cases docketed ten or more years ago.”

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

• an article about a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing estoppel in inter partes review patent proceedings;
• an article discussing another recent decision in which an “Endo International Plc subsidiary failed to convince the Federal Circuit that a generic version of its bestselling blood-pressure drug infringed its patents”;
• a third article summarizing another recent decision invoking “the rule prohibiting recapture of subject matter surrendered during prosecution” following an amendment “to overcome a § 101 patent eligibility rejection.”

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

• an article arguing “[a] review of the Federal Circuit’s motion panel assignment procedures makes clear that a party can time its filing to take advantage of the makeup of a current motion panel or wait for a future panel [that] has more judges considered favorable on the issue of venue mandamus”;
• an earlier article by the same authors arguing that “what is often portrayed as a rogue district court at odds with a supervising appellate court is in fact two things quite different–yet familiar to patent practitioners”; and
• a third article addressing the Federal Circuit’s denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to grant Director Review of decisions not to institute inter partes review and post grant review.

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 Fifth Circuit “said it would ‘continue to disagree with the Federal Circuit’ over whether it has appellate jurisdiction over” appeals of Walker Process patent fraud cases;
• a blog post highlighting how patent law’s “defense of assignor estoppel has been in flux”; and
• a third article detailing how Koss Corp. is “vying to save one of its patents for wireless earphones and headphones that has been at the center of its infringement suits against Apple Inc. over its AirPods wireless earbuds.”

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 ruling opened the door for an administrative patent tribunal to wipe out certain Federal Circuit decisions, which may entice the full federal appeals court to grant a rare re-hearing request”;
• another article addressing “steps to secure and safeguard US patents for AI-assisted inventions” following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Thaler v. Vidal; and
• a third article asserting that “[i]nventors who revise a patent to overcome an examiner’s finding that the claims are not patent-eligible cannot later walk back those changes through the reissue process.”