FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case. The Federal Circuit also issued four nonprecedential opinions: one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a patent case, one in a tax case, and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in four patent cases raising questions related to remedies, transfer of venue, novelty, non-obviousness, and real-party-in-interest rules, as well as a response to a petition raising questions related to double-patenting. Here are the details.

• Inventorship as the Wind Blows – The Federal Circuit’s decision in Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. vacated the invalidation of a data center technology patent despite the patent not listing all inventors.
• Baxalta Wins New Try at Hemophilia Drug Patent Infringement Suit – Baxalta can revive its infringement claims following the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the lower court misconstrued two key terms within the patent.
• Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Patent Infringement Complaint Under Res Judicata – The Federal Circuit held that res judicata did apply to a patent infringement case as a previous case with the same claims was dismissed for noninfringement, not on procedural grounds.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a veterans case and a government contracts case, as well as two nonprecedential opinions in a tax case and a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit did not issue any new opinions this morning.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene eleven panels to consider about 51 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will continue to hear fewer oral arguments than normal, with only about 28 cases being argued this month. Of the argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs, one a takings case and one a patent case. Here’s what you need to know about those cases.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one in a patent case and one in a trade case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions, one in a Vaccine Act case and two in trade cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Three lessons from the Federal Circuit’s recent 101 reversal in XY v Trans Ova Genetics – Partner John O’Quinn and Associate Hannah Bedard from Kirkland & Ellis delve into the key aspects and lessons to take away from the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision in XY v. Trans Ova Genetics.
• Court of Appeals Upholds Mighty Mug’s Trade Victory Against Patent-Infringing Chinese Imports – Mighty Mug, represented by Goetz Fitzpatrick, secured a victory in a fight against infringers who have been flooding the market with cheap knockoffs to Mighty Mug’s popular drinkware line.
• Apple v. Prepear: Does Apple Really Need All the Fruit? – The large tech company, Apple, claims that an image of a pear used in connection with a meal preparation app called Prepear is likely to cause consumer confusion and threatens to dilute the quality of its famous and distinctive mark. Nicole Page of IP Watchdog provides an inside glimpse into Apple’s newest opponent in its “battle for brand supremacy.”

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinon in a contract case, two precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a veterans case, and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Michelson v. Department of the Army and Sanders v. United States.
• Mylan submitted its brief in opposition to the Court in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc..
• Finally, one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court in Martin v. Department of Homeland Security by the Department of Homeland Security.

Here are the details.