FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contracts case, a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. The Federal Circuit also denied two petitions for writs of mandamus in two nonprecedential orders. Finally, the court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus in another nonprecedential order. The writ of mandamus vacates an order by the Western District of Texas to hold a patent case in its Waco Division rather than its Austin Division. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions raising questions related to inter partes review, eligible subject matter, and enablement; a new response to a petition addressing intervention; two new invitations to respond to petitions raising questions related to transfer of venue and inducement of infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and the denial of a petition related to anticipation. Here are the details.

• The Federal Circuit Says Theaters Can’t Move IP Fight Out Of Texas – Judge Rodney Gilstrap may proceed with Cinemark’s suit against Intertrust Technologies Corp.
• Doctrine of Equivalents in Lilly v. Apotex – The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s finding of summary judgment of Apotex’s infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
• USPTO Finalizes Rules On Patent Amendments, Fee Discounts – The USPTO announced two new rules on amending patents and discounts for patent application fees.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

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 a disposition in a takings case, a patent case attracting an amicus brief on the issue of the non-obviousness requirement, new briefing in a patent case challenging post-grant review proceedings as violating due process, and four recent oral arguments in cases raising questions related to patent, takings, and veterans law. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and a precedential opinion in a veterans case. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case and a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

As we have been reporting, last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of the patent cases, MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

• CAFC Upholds District Court Finding for Netflix Invalidating Adaptive Patent Under 101 – The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that Adaptive Streaming Inc.’s patent claims were directed at an abstract idea and thus were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• 3 Key Questions As Cleveland MLB Team Mulls New Name – On Monday, Major League Baseball team the Cleveland Indians announced that it is starting the process to change its name as teams continue to face pressure to drop their “disparaging monikers.”
• Employment Law and Patent Law Collide: Federal Circuit Rules that California’s Non-Compete Restrictions Also Limit the Scope of Patent and Invention Assignment Clauses – The Federal Circuit ruled that certain employment agreement provisions requiring former employees to assign their inventions to their employer after such employment ends are not permitted in California.

Here’s the latest.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, former owners of bump-fire type rifle stocks assert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed a taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is our argument recap.