FedCircuitBlog

As we have been reporting this week, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., a patent case. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. appeal numerous rulings by a district court, including rulings concerning patent eligibility, definiteness, and anticipation. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in a patent case appealed from a district court, while the other comes in an taking case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions along with links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there is no new activity in granted cases. With respect to petitions, four new petitions have been filed. Two petitions present questions related to Federal Circuit Rule 36, while two were filed in pro se cases. In addition, three new briefs in opposition and three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed. Here are the details.

As we have been reporting, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc. In this patent case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation challenges the district court’s denial of its motion to intervene and unseal judicial records. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion addresses substitute claims, and in particular whether they satisfy the written description requirement and the non-obviousness requirement. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced it will remain open for business during the lapse in federal appropriations, all scheduled arguments will proceed as scheduled, and all deadlines remain in place. Here is the full text of the announcement along with a link to the court’s related order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed in two related cases. Both petitions raise questions related to the law governing motions to transfer venue. The Federal Circuit also denied three petitions for en banc hearing raising questions concerning the identification of real parties in interest in inter partes review proceedings, estoppel based on inter partes review, and the test for design patent infringement. Here are the details.

As we reported yesterday, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in October attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. In this patent case, REGENXBIO Inc. and the Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania appeal a district court’s grant of summary judgment of ineligibility. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a case involving allegations of patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement. One of the orders transfers an appeal; one remands a case; and three are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the orders transferring and remanding cases, along with links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article commenting on “the Supreme Court’s next move” in President Trump’s tariff case;
• an article suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “confirms that Trump has alternate paths forward, should the Supreme Court strike down his emergency duties on most of global commerce”;
• an article suggesting a “dramatic change in how inter partes reviews are handled . . . has drawn sharp criticism from law professors and technology companies, setting up a high stakes battle at the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article highlighting how some attorneys are looking to John Squires, the newly confirmed director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “to provide clear rules and consistent practices, saying the current requirements keep changing.”