FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contracts case and a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Jeffrey A. Lefstin serves as a Professor of Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Prior to serving as a professor, he clerked for Federal Circuit Judge Raymond C. Clevenger III. Prof. Lefstin holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California San Francisco and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. He has written extensively and testified before Congress concerning the doctrine of patent eligibility.

Though described by the majority as “narrow,” the American Axle v. Neapco panel opinion sets forth two far-reaching expansions in the law of patent eligibility.

On Monday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the panel composed of Judges Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto unanimously affirmed a district court’s judgment of liability for infringement of a patent. The panel, however, also reversed the district court’s construction of asserted claims in two other patents and vacated the judgment of infringement of those patents. Finally, the panel also vacated the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction, but only with respect to certain product lines. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Little Tucker Act case; four nonprecedential opinions in a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, an MSPB case, a veterans case, and a patent case; and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

Last Friday, the Federal Circuit filed opinions in two related cases that attracted amicus briefs, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Alkem Laboratories Limited. In both cases, Judges Prost and Hughes affirmed the district court’s decision denying Takeda’s request for a preliminary injunction. Judge Newman dissented in both cases. Here is a summary of the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order sua sponte granting en banc rehearing in a veterans case, as well as four nonprecedential opinions in cases addressing the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, patent law, trademark law, and the jurisdiction of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is text from today’s order and the introductions of the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, four nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

As we previously reported, yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a modified panel opinion in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because Ariosa Diagnostics filed a petition for rehearing en banc. In the modified panel opinion, Judges Lourie and Moore maintained their original position, reversing the district court, which had held that the claims at issue were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. While the modified panel opinion did not change the holding of the court, it did more explicitly lay out the facts of the case that affected the court’s reasoning. Judge Reyna still dissented, but also issued a modified opinion. Here is a summary of the modified opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in patent cases, along with two related nonprecedential orders. In one of these cases, Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., a panel of the court withdrew and replaced its prior opinions addressing patent eligibility. In addition to these patent cases, the court also issued nonprecedential opinions in two veterans cases and a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

Paul R. Michel served as a Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 1988 to 2010, including a six year tenure as Chief Judge from 2004 to 2010. Here, he reflects on judicial treatment of patent eligibility law—from the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. in 2012 through Friday’s set of opinions in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC.

The law of patent eligibility has been a hopeless mess ever since the Mayo decision upended three decades of stable and predictable law described in Diehr in 1981.