FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to inter partes review estoppel and notice required to collect damages for infringement. The court also received three new responses to petitions that raised questions related to the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding, the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order transfer, and the assignment of patents. The court received four amicus briefs in cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding, patent eligibility, and the assignment of patents. Finally, the court denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to the weight given to expert witness testimony during claim construction and the non-obviousness requirement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second and third come in government contract cases appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, respectively. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• a blog post detailing how in a patent case the Federal Circuit “affirmed a district court’s finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285” based on inequitable conduct;
• another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the “potential for decision maker bias to occur”;
• a report explaining the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of “a Texas federal court’s decision to clear HP and other companies . . . of infringing several printing patents” and an “attorney fee order”; and
• an article assessing how Apple “won . . . support . . . for its effort to get the Federal Circuit to rehear [a patent] ownership dispute.”

Today the Federal Circuit announced the launch of its new website. Here is the court’s announcement regarding the new website and some highlights of the website’s new and improved features.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are links to the judgments.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions in patent cases appealed from federal district courts and a disposition in a takings case appealed from Court of Federal Claims. Here are the details.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before a panel that included Judges Newman, Schall, and Dyk. Mobility requested a remand to the Patent and Trademark Office in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., but it also made numerous constitutional challenges to the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Judge Dyk authored the majority opinion in the case, ultimately remanding the case to the Acting Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to consider whether to grant a rehearing in light of Arthrex, but also concluding that Mobility’s constitutional arguments are without merit. Notably, Judge Newman authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus against the U.S. Patent and Trademark. The petition requested the Federal Circuit compel the Director of the USPTO to review a board decision in an inter partes review in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. Here is the introduction to the order.

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 the Federal Circuit’s “reject[ion] [of the] argument that . . . PTAB Judges have an improper financial interest in instituting AIA proceedings”;
• an article discussing how General Motors, in a recent Federal Circuit decision, “beat back a challenge by computer-component maker Micro Mobio Corp” in a trademark dispute;
• another blog post providing an update on a case “in which the court concluded that the USPTO cannot recover expert witness fees in actions brought under 35 U.S.C. § 145”; and
• an article detailing how “Nokia Oyj, Sprint Corp., and Verizon Communications Inc. are cleared of allegations that their products infringe wireless network patents owned by Traxcell Technologies LLC.”

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case we have been following because it attracted dueling amicus briefs. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Prost, and Chen. On appeal, Kannuu argued that due to a forum selection clause in a contract among the parties the Southern District of New York should have ordered Samsung to seek dismissal of inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung. Judge Chen authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the denial of the requested relief. Judge Newman authored a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary.