FedCircuitBlog

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

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court invited the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility.
• Five new petitions were filed in patent, veterans, Tucker Act, and trademark cases.
• Seventeen new briefs in opposition were filed in sixteen cases.
• Five new reply briefs were filed.
• One supplemental brief was filed.
• One amicus brief was filed in a patent case.
• Five waivers of right to respond were submitted.
• The Court denied eight petitions.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion reversing a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one in a veterans case and one in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Can a Patent Violate the Laws of Chemistry and Physics? – In this blog post, Audrey Millemann of TheIPBlog.com explains that the quick answer is no, patents may not violate the laws of chemistry and physics.
• Federal Circuit Reaffirms Targeted Advertising Is an Abstract Concept – On NationalLawReview.com, three Finnegan attorneys report on a recent determination by the Federal Circuit that certain claims were directed to an abstract idea of targeted advertising.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In it, the court affirmed a judgment that the claims at issue are ineligible for patenting under under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. We are still waiting for the court to issue an opinion in Arellano v. McDonough, an en banc veterans case. As for pending petitions in patent cases, highlights include new petitions concerning Patent Trial and Appeal Board termination of inter partes review proceedings, reviewability of Board discovery rulings related to real-party-in-interest disputes, the utilization of expert witnesses in district court summary judgment proceedings, and standing before the Board. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases affirming decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Federal Circuit Affirms Decision to Vacate Judgment Following Evidence of Fraud – Joseph Marinelli at JDSupra.com commented on a recent decision by the Federal Circuit that may have implications in future attempts to vacate a final judgments based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.
• Federal Circuit Revives Trimble Patent Claims in Jurisdiction Ruling – Blake Brittain from Reuters reported about the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• License Agreement Not Enough for Standing on Appeal of an IPR Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. – Alexandra Leigh Lodge and George E. Quillin reported for NationalLawReview.com about how Apple was unable to prove that it had standing to appeal final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Here is the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion affirming the United States Court of Federal Claims in a Tucker Act case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

On April 21, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. As we highlighted in our argument preview, the question presented to the Court was “whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.” In other words, the parties argued for and against the doctrine of assignor estoppel. This is our argument recap.