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 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.

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

• a post commenting on the Federal Circuit’s rehearing grant rates and how to achieve rehearing at the court;
• discussion of a letter sent by two U.S. senators to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning patent law’s disclosure requirements; and
• an article discussing a recent case addressing subject matter eligibility of software claims based on improvement to computer functionality.

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 long-term impact of the Federal Circuit’s decision concerning two patents covering the drug Eliquis;
• a report detailing the ITC’s urging of the Federal Circuit to uphold its ruling of infringement of Jeep’s trade dress;
• an article discussing a recent bid protest in the context of challenging government agency decisions; and
• a report focusing on a precedential order by the Federal Circuit regarding the PTAB’s conclusion that it is not bound by agreements to arbitrate validity disputes.

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

• commentary on the swearing in of new Federal Circuit Judge Tiffany P. Cunningham;
• discussion of a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion applying the limitation on patent damages found in 35 U.S.C. § 287(a); and
• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s determination that appointments to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board do not violate the Appointments Clause.

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

• a report discussing the Federal Circuit’s refusal to consider a ruling addressing alleged venue manipulation;
• an article about a Federal Circuit opinion addressing alleged inequitable conduct in the procurement of a patent; and
• an article discussing difficulty in the application of the non-obviousness patentability requirement in the context of design patents.

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

• a Federal Circuit opinion reversing a $1.2 billion dollar jury verdict;
• the use of court-appointed technical advisors by federal district courts in patent cases;
• how the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s order prohibiting certain expert testimony related to damages in a patent case; and
• a Federal Circuit opinion in a patent case addressing the construction of a claim preamble.