FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a veterans case in which the en banc court will consider the court’s jurisdiction to review interpretive rules the Department of Veterans Affairs promulgates in its Adjudication Procedures Manual, three new amicus briefs were filed. Other highlights include new petitions in two patent cases raising questions related to venue and claim preclusion; a new response to a petition in another patent case raising questions related to jurisdiction; an invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility; and the denial of a petition raising questions related to obviousness. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition by a pro se appellant and the denial of two petitions in cases raising questions related to standing and obviousness. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a response to a petition in a case raising questions related to standing; a new invitation for response to a petition in a case raising questions related to Jurisdiction over an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and the denial of a petition raising questions related to inequitable conduct and obviousness. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include the filing of the opening brief in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in which the Federal Circuit granted a petition for initial hearing en banc to address two questions related to jurisdiction and veterans law. As for petitions in patent cases, highlights include a new petition raising questions related to restriction requirements and patent term adjustments; a new response to a petition raising questions related to obviousness; a new invitation for a response to a petition raising questions related to injunctive relief; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to claim construction, prevailing party status, and forum selection clauses. Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• After receiving three petitions last week, the Supreme Court received yet another petition from Lakshmi Arunachalam in Lakshmi Arunachalam, Petitioner v. SAP America, Inc.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the petitioner submitted its reply to the Court, denouncing the claims made by the respondent and further advocating for their writ to be granted.
• Finally, the Supreme Court denied a total of eight different petitions this week, among that group of denied petitions are cases like Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp. and Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission. For the full list of denied petitions, see the list below.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in two cases raising questions related to obviousness; responses to petitions in two cases raising questions related to inequitable conduct, obviousness, and assignor estoppel; an invitation for a response to a petition raising questions related to standing; and the denial of four petitions raising questions related to claim construction and the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received six new petitions this week in (1) BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., (2) Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., (3) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank., (4) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al., (5) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and (6) Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
• In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast submitted its reply to the ITC’s brief in opposition.
• Finally, the State of Indiana submitted identical amicus briefs in favor of the petitioners in both Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in three cases raising questions related to standing, obviousness, and eligibility; a new invitation for a response in a case raising questions related to obviousness; two new amicus briefs in cases raising questions related to claim construction, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; and the denial of seven petitions raising questions related to claim construction, eligibility, novelty, non-obviousness, and the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new petition for certiorari was filed in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two briefs in opposition were filed. One brief from Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp. and the other from the United States.
• The Supreme Court received a total of five amicus briefs this week. Four amicus briefs in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and one amicus brief in Callan Campbell v. United States.
• In Ford Motor Co. v. United States, Ford submitted its reply to the United States’ brief in opposition.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition filed in a case raising questions related to standing; a new invitation for responses to petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel as well as a new amicus brief in the same case; the denial of petitions in five cases raising questions related to claim construction, persons who may petition for post-issuance review proceedings, jurisdiction, and non-obviousness; and the grant of a motion to withdraw in a case raising questions related to vitiation. Here are the details.