FedCircuitBlog

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 “[t]he Federal Circuit is poised to provide guidance in the coming year on two patent law issues that have befuddled district courts”;
• another article detailing how “the Federal Circuit (CAFC) . . . affirmed a district court’s ruling that Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 is not invalid” over a dissent by Chief Judge Moore;
• an article detailing how the Federal Circuit “denied Cisco’s bid to rehear a panel decision reinstating a $57 million enhanced damages award against . . . SRI International Inc. over cybersecurity patents”; and
• another article noting that the Federal Circuit “was the first federal appeals court to announce a switch to remote oral arguments for its January session in response to the spike in COVID-19 cases.”

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

• an article analyzing cases and an emerging trend regarding how “the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board is only the first hurdle in what is a long game for patent owners”;
• a blog post detailing how the “Supreme Court and Judicial Conference consider[ed] Judge Albright’s problematic patent court”;
• another blog post evaluating the “Federal Circuit’s PTAB appeals statistics through November 30, 2021”; and
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit “rejected arguments the U.S. Army’s improper handling of [a government contract] award prejudiced it.”

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 Federal Circuit’s recent announcement that “January oral arguments will be conducted by phone”;
• another article detailing the Federal Circuit’s recent “switch back to remote oral arguments amid the omicron spike”;
• yet another article discussing “six bid protest decisions worthy of note”; and
• a blog post analyzing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination of certain patent claims as “unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious.”

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

• an article discussing “[t]he US’s biggest patent stories of 2021”;
• another article detailing “the top patent eligibility stories of 2021”; and
• yet another article explaining how “[c]ourts [are] taking extra measures to limit virus spread.”

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

• an article explaining the new COVID-19 protocols adopted by the court;
• a blog post assessing how “[t]he issue of standing can be outcome-determinative”;
• another blog post noting how SMU Dedman School of Law’s “Tsai Center for Law, Science, and Innovation has posted to its YouTube channel some of the panels from its Fall 2021 Symposium on patent law”; and
• another article discussing “how important it is to review patent applications during research and development to ensure they cover what ends up being the key invention.”

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

• an article discussing Law360’s “picks for the top trademark rulings of 2021”;
• another article detailing the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board priority determination;
• another article explaining a Federal Circuit decision “[a]ddressing obviousness in the context of method of treatment claims using particular drug dosages”; and
• another article assessing “homes, cars & IP: the valuation method intriguing patent lawyers.”

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

• an article detailing how “[a] South Korean nutritional supplement company correctly lost its BF-7 trademark registration”;
• another article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit has refused to revive Polycom Inc.’s attempt to undo part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision”;
• a blog post assessing how “‘[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction’”; and
• yet another article discussing how the Federal Circuit has recently provided “an important new data point in the evolving timeliness rules for bid protests filed with the Court of Federal Claims.”

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 whether Section 1052(c) of the Lanham Act is “a “First Amendment-free zone”;
• an article analyzing Cellspin Soft’s challenge of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of “Director review following a pair of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• another article discussing the Federal Circuit’s affirmation of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling “that certain claims were invalid as anticipated by an earlier priority application from the same family”; and
• yet another article explaining how the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board determined that “[a] trademark registration applicant can’t register a mark for a business that is in the ‘nascent stage.’”

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

• two articles discussing Federal Circuit-nominee and currently District of Delaware Judge Leonard Stark’s recent confirmation hearing;
• another article about a potential patent infringement lawsuit related to a COVID-19 vaccine; and
• an article discussing a recent petition filed at the Supreme Court related to patent eligibility law.

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 Federal Circuit’s trend of “directing Judge Alan Albright . . . to transfer a case to the Northern District of California”;
• a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of ineligibility for claims directed to a computer authentication method”;
• an article assessing how the Federal Circuit “[a]ddress[ed] venue in the context of a Hatch-Waxman case” and “explained that sending a paragraph IV notice letter to a company in the district is insufficient to establish venue”; and
• another article discussing a Federal Circuit ruling in a government contract case.