FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case that attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which found all challenged patent claims unpatentable. The argument focused on the fourth issue presented, “whether the Board erred in determining that . . . a published and later abandoned U.S. patent application . . . can be applied in an IPR as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).” That statutory subsection says that “a petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent . . . only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” What the appellant and one amicus brief argue is that a patent application that never issues as a patent is not a patent nor does it qualify as a printed publication when its publication date is after the effective filing date of the patent subject to the inter partes review proceeding. Judge Lourie, Prost, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Yesterday evening, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, two orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California, while the second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, links to the Rule 36 judgments, and links to the dismissals.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions in two cases raising a question about whether an undisputed feature of prior art may serve as the basis for patent eligibility and questions about enablement of prior art. The court also denied a petition for en banc rehearing raising questions about attorneys’ fees. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit today announced that the court’s electronic filing system will be unavailable this weekend due to maintenance. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions, four Rule 36 judgments, and one nonprecedential order. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment in a patent case appealed from the District of Maryland. The second and third affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, links to the Rule 36 judgments, and a link to the dismissal.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website given the federal holiday.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion affirming a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a pro se case. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit heard “arguments at law schools and courthouses around the San Francisco Bay Area this week”;
• an article highlighting “the intense debate over restoring injunctive relief for patent holders,” noting how “two different camps within the pro-strong-patent rights community have emerged”;
• an article discussing yesterday’s oral argument in a case addressing whether inter partes review proceedings may consider abandoned patent applications published after the filing date of a patent under review; and
• a blog post discussing how the Patent Office “recently terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent use of a practitioner’s signature.”