FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case addressing the ability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to consider eligibility challenges to proposed substitute claims in inter partes review proceedings. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a veterans case in which the en banc court will consider the court’s jurisdiction to review interpretive rules the Department of Veterans Affairs promulgates in its Adjudication Procedures Manual, three new amicus briefs were filed. Other highlights include new petitions in two patent cases raising questions related to venue and claim preclusion; a new response to a petition in another patent case raising questions related to jurisdiction; an invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility; and the denial of a petition raising questions related to obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions or orders.

• Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Eligibility Analysis – In Packet Intelligence, LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., the court held NetScout willfully infringed Packet Intelligence’s patents, rejecting NetScout’s argument that the patents were directed toward an abstract idea.
• Nike and Adidas Escape Patent Claims Over Athletic-Shoe Soles – According to a Federal Circuit decision on July 16, the shoe companies did not infringe Akeva’s wear-reducing patent because the companies’ shoes do not have detachable soles.
• Patent invalidity claim is no cure for ITC’s import ban on grippy mugs – On July 16, the Federal Circuit ruled that a party cannot challenge a general ITC exclusion order barring importation of products for infringing a patent by claiming the patent is invalid.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinion 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 five dispositions, two new cases, two cases with new briefing, and one upcoming oral argument. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued an important order granting a motion to vacate and remand in In re Boloro Global Ltd., a case we have been following. In the order, the court extended the application of Arthrex to ex parte patent examination appeals, determining that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Administrative Patent Judges were unconstitutionally appointed in this context (in addition to inter partes review as in Arthrex). Here is a summary of the case and the order.  

On Wednesday the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sellers v. Wilkie, another case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, a Federal Circuit panel (including Judges Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes) unanimously reversed and remanded the lower court’s ruling granting benefits to a veteran. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases; one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case; one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case; and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

• U.S. Wrongly Linked 3 Steel Companies In Duty Probe – The U.S. Department of Commerce improperly tied steel companies together in an anti-dumping investigation, said the Federal Circuit.
• All Substantial Rights Deemed Test Informative – With the decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit endorses the “all substantial rights” test for the first time.
• Section 315(a) Calls At Institution Cannot Be Reviewed – Finally, the Federal Circuit applied the recent Supreme Court decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs to a Section 315(a) and (b) case.

Here’s the latest.