FedCircuitBlog

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

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case explaining the difference between waiver and forfeiture. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

• USPTO Says Interested Party Rulings Aren’t ‘Shenanigans’ – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office defended against accusations that the agency engaged in “shenanigans” when it did not require Google to be named as an interested party during a review of a mobile website patent.
• Guitar Pedalboard Patent Sent for New PTAB Review by Fed. Cir. – The Federal Circuit ruled on Monday that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred when the board analyzed a guitar pedalboard patent and rejected an earlier electrical relay patent as analogous prior art.
• Heart Monitor Maker Asks High Court to Clear Eligibility Muddle – InfoBionic Inc. suggests that a Supreme Court review of its case involving a dispute over a cardiac monitoring patent could provide clarity around which inventions are eligible for patents.

Here’s the latest.

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

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

• The Supreme Court received one new cross-petition for writ of certiorari in Hologic, Inc. v. Minvera Surgical, Inc.
• One new response to the petition in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. was filed with the Court by Hologic.
• Two new amicus briefs were filed in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. in support of Minerva, the first by Engine Advocacy and the second by a group of Intellectual Property Professors.
• One waiver of right to respond to the petition in Rutila v. Department of Transportation was filed with the Court by the Department of Transportation.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in two cases: (1) Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp. and (2) Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.

Here are the details.

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

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. As for granted petitions, a new brief was filed in one of the two pending veterans cases. As for pending petitions, highlights include two new petitions, one in a patent case raising questions related to claim construction and one in a pro se case; and the denial of four petitions in patent cases raising questions related to obviousness, prosecution history estoppel, vitiation, reasonable royalties, and sanctions. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a trade case, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the court issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

• Investors Eye Patents After ‘Extraordinary’ Damage Awards Run – The past year has seen several large damages awards in patent infringement cases but the Federal Circuit has overturned some of the larger awards.
• Federal Circuit Limits Venue for Hatch-Waxman Cases – The Federal Circuit ruled that venue was only proper in judicial districts sufficiently related to the submission of an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) and not where a generic drug could be distributed.
• Fed. Circ. Mulls Fate Of Wi-Fi Co.’s $8M Infringement Verdict – Oral arguments before the Federal Circuit took place on Friday for SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Ltd. reviewing a jury verdict of uCloudlink’s willful infringement.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued a precedential order issuing a writ of mandamus that directs the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent infringement suit to the Northern District of California. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.