FedCircuitBlog

As we previously reported, yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a modified panel opinion in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because Ariosa Diagnostics filed a petition for rehearing en banc. In the modified panel opinion, Judges Lourie and Moore maintained their original position, reversing the district court, which had held that the claims at issue were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. While the modified panel opinion did not change the holding of the court, it did more explicitly lay out the facts of the case that affected the court’s reasoning. Judge Reyna still dissented, but also issued a modified opinion. Here is a summary of the modified opinions.

• Federal Circuit May Have its Eye on West Texas Patent Hot Spot – A Federal Circuit order in In re Adobe Inc. may signal the Court’s attention to a new patent litigation hot spot in Central Texas.
• Federal Circuit Reverses TTAB Ruling on Standing – The Federal Circuit overturns TTAB standing ruling in trademark dispute.
• When “Killing Competition” Isn’t Anticompetitive – Antitrust claims fall flat as the Federal Circuit affirms the lower court’s dismissal of Power Analytics Corp. v. Operation Technology, Inc.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in patent cases, along with two related nonprecedential orders. In one of these cases, Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., a panel of the court withdrew and replaced its prior opinions addressing patent eligibility. In addition to these patent cases, the court also issued nonprecedential opinions in two veterans cases and a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

Paul R. Michel served as a Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 1988 to 2010, including a six year tenure as Chief Judge from 2004 to 2010. Here, he reflects on judicial treatment of patent eligibility law—from the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. in 2012 through Friday’s set of opinions in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC.

The law of patent eligibility has been a hopeless mess ever since the Mayo decision upended three decades of stable and predictable law described in Diehr in 1981.  

This week the Federal Circuit will convene six panels to consider about 37 cases. This month, like last month, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, the court will hear fewer oral arguments than normal, with only about 13 cases being argued this month. Of the argued cases, only one case attracted amicus briefs.

As we previously reported, earlier today the Federal Circuit issued a modified opinion in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a case we have been tracking because American Axle & Manufacturing (AAM) petitioned for rehearing en banc. In the modified opinion, the court vacated a district court’s judgment that one independent patent claim and its dependent claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but affirmed the district court’s judgment of invalidity for lack of eligibility with respect to other claims. In addition to the modified panel opinion, the court issued an order denying a petition for rehearing en banc. The petition failed narrowly—by a vote of 6-6. Judges Dyk and Chen filed opinions concurring in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, while Judges Newman, Stoll, and O’Malley filed dissenting opinions. Here is a summary of the opinions, orders, and dissents.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued seven precedential opinions and orders in patent cases, along with one related nonprecedential opinion. These include the opinions and orders in the closely watched case of American Axle & Manufacturing v. NEAPCO Holdings LLC, which concerns the application of patent eligibility law. Notably, in that case the court vacated the prior panel opinion, issued a new panel opinion, and denied en banc rehearing by an evenly divided court. Here are the introductions to today’s opinions and text from today’s orders.

• GI Bill Ruling Won’t Come in Time for Fall Classes – Veteran students deprived of GI Bill benefits needed for the Fall semester while waiting for Federal Circuit input.
• Prior Work Can Lead to Joint Inventorship – Work by co-inventors performed independently and publicly disclosed prior to the conception of the claimed invention can constitute joint inventorship.
• Federal Circuit Won’t Revisit Relistor Ruling – Valeant failed to persuade the Federal Circuit to revisit their obviousness decision in Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Here’s the latest.

The Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions this morning.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) Blodgett v. United States, (2) United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC, and (3) Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc.
• The United States, Arthrex, Inc, and Smith & Nephew, Inc. filed related responses in the following petitions: (1) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., (2) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., (3) Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., and (4) United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• Only one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court this week in Morsa v. Iancu by Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Here are the details.