FedCircuitBlog

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 whether, in the context of the Patent Act, “obviousness is a straightforward inquiry”;
• an article assessing the Federal Circuit and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s approaches to patent subject matter eligibility;
• another blog post analyzing the primary takeaways from a recent Federal Circuit patent case addressing damages; and
• another article explaining how “AT&T Corp. survived a patent infringement claim . . . after the Federal Circuit found there wasn’t sufficient evidence that the telephone service provider’s remote terminals were in locations covered by the patents.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders concerning the court’s jurisdiction over appeals from the Board of Correction for Army Records and over interlocutory appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

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 “St Jude Medical will have to defend claims that its catheters infringe[d] a company’s revived patent”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “affirm[ed] — on a procedural technicality — a precedential decision of a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that granted a motion to amend claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding”; and
• yet another article assessing how “Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.‘s best hope for escaping a $42 million patent infringement verdict won by Seagen Inc. may lie in its separate administrative challenge to Seagen’s patent.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a death benefits case appealed from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The second comes in two consolidated patent cases appealed from the District of Delaware. The court also released four nonprecedential orders. Two of the orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus against, respectively, the Court of Federal Claims and Eastern District of Texas. The third order grants a voluntary dismissal, and the fourth transfers a case to the Second Circuit. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions. The first comes in a government contract case appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The other three come in trade cases appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a trade case and the other in a patent case. Finally, the court released a nonprecedential order, a Rule 36 judgment, and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner filed his reply merits brief in George v. McDonough, a case concerning the scope of clear and unmistakable error in the context of review of denials of veterans’ claims for benefits. As to cases with pending petitions, the government filed a brief in opposition in a veterans case challenging the Federal Circuit’s application of the Chevron doctrine. Also, following a Supreme Court request last fall, the government finally submitted the view of the United States in a patent case raising questions related to preclusion. The Court also denied three petitions: one in a government contracts case and two in patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions raising questions related to estoppel arising from inter partes review, the legal standard for overruling prior precedential decisions, claim construction, and the standard for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to evaluate substitute claims and a motion to amend claims. The court also invited responses to four petitions raising questions related to the presumption of nexus in a non-obviousness analysis; the process and standard for determining indefiniteness; and choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the assignment of patents and standing. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The third comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Nevada. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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 “[c]ourts continue to struggle with their use of evidence for claim construction” in patent cases;
• an article detailing how the “Senate’s April 5 confirmation of Winston & Strawn partner Kathi Vidal means the agency can finally make movement on pressing policy issues that have been in limbo while the leadership post remained vacant for more than a year”; and
• another article analyzing how the the Federal Circuit recently “criticized, but left intact, limits on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can devise reasons to reject requests to amend patents.”