FedCircuitBlog

• Now Streaming On YouTube: The Federal Circuit – The Federal Circuit will begin livestreaming the audio feed of oral arguments on YouTube starting in March.
• Make It Pithy and Other Lawyer Tips From a Federal Circuit Judge – Judge Raymond Chen of the Federal Circuit spoke on Friday at the 17th Annual Symposium on Emerging Intellectual Property Issues providing his prospective and tips to lawyers in the field.

Here’s the latest.

This week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Euzebio v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. Judge Wallach authored a unanimous panel opinion reversing and remanding a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that certain materials were not constructively before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for an interlocutory appeal. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

As we previously reported, the Federal Circuit recently conducted a panel rehearing in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In this case, Teva petitioned the en banc court to reconsider the panel’s decision that Teva induced infringement through use of a skinny label on its generic version of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) drug Coreg. Teva pointed to Hatch-Waxman and asserted that Congress provided a statutory “carve-out” mechanism allowing a generic to adopt a skinny label for unpatented uses that cannot be blocked by a patent on one method of using the drug. The panel treated the motion as requesting panel rehearing and granted panel rehearing. This is our recap of the rehearing oral argument.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in government contract cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgements.

• Patenting Software-Related Inventions Is Getting Easier – Experts analyze Federal Circuit precedent and USPTO guidance to advance two recommendations for IP practitioners with regard to ensuring patent eligibility of inventions directed to software-related technologies.
• CAFC Reverses In-Part, Vacates In-Part PTAB Patentability Finding for Skin Cancer Detection Device – The Federal Circuit used an obviousness analysis and ruled that the PTAB erred in holding that patent claims directed at a skin cancer detection device were patentable.
• Federal Circuit Affirms District Court Decision Blocking Poultry Chiller Patent Suit Due to Equitable Intervening Rights – For the first time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the “boundaries of the phrase ‘protection of investments’ in [35 U.S.C.] § 252”, which outlines the effect of reissued patents.

Here’s the latest.

On Monday, March 1, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the closely-watched patent case, United States v. Arthrex. As we previewed a couple days prior to argument, two main issues were considered by the Court. First, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, whether administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are principal or inferior officers. And second, if APJs are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. New petitions were filed in two patent cases raising questions related to claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents. The court also denied seven petitions in patent cases raising questions related to Rule 36 judgments, injunctive relief, claim construction, awards of attorneys’ fees, eligible subject matter, deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, standing, inter partes review, and enablement. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, reversing a district court’s judgment on indefiniteness. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. The introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments can be found here.