FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

Today the Federal Circuit did not issue any new opinions.

Another case being argued next week involves Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“IV”) and EMC Corp. (“EMC”). This case present the issue of whether, during an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may premise its obviousness finding on expert testimony that represents gap-filling.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases, including a new petition related to the issue of patent eligibility.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and a precedential opinion in a case in which a federal employee sought back pay for an unlawful discharge. Here are the introductions to the opinions. 

Another interesting case being argued next week involves Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (“Fraunhofer”) and Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“SXM”). This case presents the question of whether the term “irrevocable” in a patent license precludes any forfeiture of the licensed rights.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases, including news related to the Federal Circuit’s October hearings, a recent petition for certiorari and an amicus brief in a case pending before a panel, and an analysis of how diagnostic inventions are faring at the court.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

A pharmaceutical patent case being argued next week involves Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (“Sanofi”) and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”). This case presents two related issues on the subject of the law of obviousness: (1) whether “obviousness may be shown even when the prior art did not ‘expressly articulate’ or even implicitly ‘suggest’” a modification to the prior art, and (2) whether “the teachings of the challenged patents-in-suit, rather than the prior art,” are sufficient to show that a person of skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had a reason to modify the prior art.”

I’m excited to introduce you to Fed Circuit Blog, a project of the Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation at the SMU Dedman School of Law. This blog provides comprehensive coverage of activities and news related to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In several ways the Federal Circuit is a unique court. Given that it has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in various types of federal cases, unless the Supreme Court reviews its opinions, these opinions govern nationwide.

The court’s exclusive jurisdiction includes appeals in patent cases. Given the impact of patents on the development and use of technology, the Federal Circuit holds an important place in the innovation ecosystem. As a result, Fed Circuit Blog will provide particular insight into the law governing patent cases and its impact on the innovation ecosystem. That said, Fed Circuit Blog will extend its coverage of the court to other areas of the court’s jurisdiction.

So exactly what information will Fed Circuit Blog provide?