FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a “Public Advisory Concerning the Federal Circuit’s April 2020 Sitting.” In it, the court announced that it was taking three different approaches to its cases scheduled for oral argument next month. Here are the details.

Our final argument recap this month comes in Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the court confronts invalidity and infringement arguments related to IFN-β-related polypeptides, which can be used to treat multiple sclerosis. Last Friday, the parties (Plaintiff-Appellee Biogen MA, Inc. and Defendants-Appellants EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer Inc.) presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Newman, Linn, and Hughes.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in an international trade case and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protections Board case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

As we have reported in earlier posts this week, the Federal Circuit last week heard four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the court addressed the issue of obviousness-type double patenting, which is an equitable doctrine aimed at preventing patent owners from extending patent protection beyond the statutorily-afforded term. As we noted in our argument preview, one of the main issues presented to the court concerning this doctrine in this case was whether Immunex owns “all substantial rights in [the patents-in-suit], including the ability to control patent prosecution.” Last week the parties presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Here is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in six cases raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and implied licenses, one request by the Federal Circuit for a response to a petition raising questions related to collateral estoppel and inter partes review, and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to transfer, waiver, and design patent infringement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued five Rule 36 judgments. Here is a list of the judgments.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Caquelin v. United States, the court considered a takings claim. As we noted in our argument preview, one of the two issues presented to the court was whether a notice of interim trail use (NITU) “amounted to a government-authorized physical occupation of the underlying property for purposes of [a] takings analysis.” Last Thursday, the parties presented their arguments to a panel that included Judges Prost, Linn, and Taranto. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology and a recent petition for en banc rehearing by Prisua in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here is a list of the judgments.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In the first of these cases, Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., the court addressed patent eligibility. As we noted in our argument preview, the central issue related to whether a patent claiming a method and process for “automatically routing telephone calls and other communications in a multinetwork environment using a physical controller” covers mere abstract ideas not eligible for patenting. On Tuesday, March 3, the parties presented their arguments to a panel including Judges Newman, Lourie, and O’Malley. This is our argument recap.