FedCircuitBlog

Apple Must Face Apple Watch Patent Claims, Fed Circ. Affirms – Blake Brittain posted an article on Reuters.com about how Apple “lost its bid to escape patent infringement claims over its Apple Watch technology . . . at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

Teva’s Generic Label Not Skinny Enough to Protect from $234M Damages to GSK – In an article written by Khadijah M. Silver on MedCityNews.com, Silver reports that the Federal Circuit issued a “controversial” decision about Teva’s “skinny label.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments, one affirming a judgment appealed from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the other affirming a judgment appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The court also issued one erratum. Here are links to the relevant orders.

This past Wednesday the court heard oral argument in Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. United States, Cacciapalle v. United States, Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, and Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, cases that attracted amicus briefs. In these cases, the plaintiffs asserted claims at the Court of Federal Claims based on government actions related to the 2008 financial crisis and ownership of shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As explained by the Court of Federal Claims in one of the cases, the “plaintiffs seek the return of money illegally exacted, damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and compensation for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The Court of Federal Claims, however, dismissed these claims, finding it “lacks jurisdiction to entertain their fiduciary duty and implied-in-fact-contract claims, and plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any of their claims.” The plaintiffs have now appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower court’s holdings. The Federal Circuit consolidated these cases for purposes of oral argument. Judges Lourie, Prost, and O’Malley heard Wednesday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case over a dissent by Judge O’Malley. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims and the other in an appeal from a determination of the International Trade Commission in a patent dispute. Additionally, the court issued a nonprecedential order unsealing its opinion in the appeal from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.

CAFC Affirms Improper Venue Ruling in Victoria’s Secrets’ Favor – On IPWatchDog, Matthew Schutte posted an article reporting on a Federal Circuit decision to affirm the grant of a motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit based on improper venue.

Judge Albright will Keep the Google and Apple Cases – In a post on PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch offers his thoughts on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision not to order Judge Albright to transfer certain patent cases.

Arthrex-Based TTAB Challenge Meets Dubious Federal Circuit Panel – Kyle Jahner reports for Bloomberg that “[a] piano company trying to revive its trademark encountered a Federal Circuit skeptical of its argument.”

Shell, ARCO, Texaco, Unocal Win $100 Million WWII Cleanup Appeal – In this article on BloombergLaw.com, Daniel Seiden reports on the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Shell Oil Co. v. United States.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case in which the court reinstated a jury verdict of infringement over a dissent by Judge Prost. The court also issued an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the erratum.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case asking a question related to inter partes review, and the Court requested a response in another patent case involving inter partes review. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case, a nonprecedential opinion affirming the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The court also issued three nonprecedential orders, including two orders in patent cases denying petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer the underlying cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court invited a response to a petition concerning patent eligibility. Additionally, the court denied a petition concerning means-plus-function claim limitations. Lastly, the court granted a motion to withdraw a petition concerning the extent of estoppel in claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one affirming a district court’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and another dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one affirming a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and another affirming a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.