FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article analyzing Judge Stark’s 2018 ruling as a district judge in an important patent eligibility case and how it might portend his analysis of patent eligibility as a judge on the Federal Circuit; and
• a blog post and an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently addressed estoppel as a result of inter partes review.

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

• an article announcing the release of a report on “the developments shaping patent law”;
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a “district court finding that dual-access lock patents are invalid” as ineligible; and
• yet another article focused on a recent Federal Circuit ruling in a contract dispute.

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 h[eld] [that a] pre-critical date letter is [a] [c]ommercial offer for sale, triggering on-sale bar”;
• a blog post asserting that the “Federal Circuit needs to clarify that CalTech Estoppel applies only to claims challenged via [inter partes review]”;
• an article noting how “in-person arguments return to D.C.’s Federal Circuit as Omicron fades”; and
• another article announcing the “2022 IP Outlook Report: the developments shaping trademark 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 how “[t]he U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Leonard Stark to the Federal Circuit, the nation’s top patent court”;
• another article similarly discussing how “Judge Leonard Philip Stark was confirmed by the U.S. Senate yesterday to be the next judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, replacing Judge Kathleen O’Malley”;
• an article discussing how “Teva struck out . . . in its effort to convince a U.S. appeals court to rehear its arguments for undoing a $235 million verdict for GlaxoSmithKline”; and
• yet another article explaining how recently the “Federal Circuit [effectively] clamp[ed] down on post IPR invalidity arguments.”

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 far “the scope of [inter partes review] estoppel expands”;
• another blog post commenting on “[t]he Federal Circuit’s analysis of comparable licenses” for damages purposes in patent cases; and
• an article explaining “mandamus and the battle over venue in modern America.”

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 recently the “Federal Circuit underscore[d] [the] importance of [patent law’s] written description requirement”;
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit “threw out a jury verdict ordering Apple Inc and Broadcom Inc to pay $1.1 billion to the California Institute of Technology” in a patent case;
• another another article assessing how the Federal Circuit “upheld a Michigan judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction” in a patent case; and
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “improperly relied on applicant admitted prior art” in an inter partes review proceeding.

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 responses to the PTO’s 2021 patent eligibility study”;
• another blog post explaining how the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded an International Trade Commission decision in a patent case based on an abuse of discretion in admitting expert testimony;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to invalidate patent claims for indefiniteness; and
• another article detailing how “Qualcomm Inc. convinced the Federal Circuit that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office improperly invalidated parts of its semiconductor patent based on admissions made in the patent itself.”

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 recently “the Federal Circuit denied a petition for mandamus relief from an order transferring a first-filed declaratory judgment action”;
• another article explaining how “AstraZeneca has urged the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to revisit a split panel decision”;
• another article detailing how a “Federal Circuit judge said Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court justices created ‘a trap for the unwary’ by keeping alive a doctrine barring inventors from challenging the validity of their own patents”; and
• yet another article assessing how the Federal Circuit recently “address[ed] [the] ‘abuse of authority’ standard under [federal] whistleblower law.”

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 venue in patent litigation in the context of “Chief Justice Roberts provid[ing] his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary”;
• an article analyzing arguments recently made for why a “suit against [an] ex-USPTO director should stay alive”; and
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit recently “held that the term ‘lifter member’ invokes means plus function (MPF) claiming.”

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

• an article identifying the “top issues for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2022”;
• another article providing a 2021 “review: trademarks, copyrights and patents”; and
• a third article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently ruled “that retired military members count as civilians for service on the Board for Correction of Naval Records.”