FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to claim construction; new invitations to respond to petitions raising questions related to novelty and non-obviousness; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to design patent law and joinder in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a vaccine case, one in a veterans case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

• CBM Review: A Postmortem – The covered business method review, expiring on September 15th, has seen a rise and fall in popularity that can be attributed to the Federal Circuit.
• Oracle Loses JEDI Appeal – In Oracle America, Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision to allow the Department of Defense to issue a $10 billion, 10-year cloud-computing contract to Microsoft.
• Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction over Constitutional Questions in AIA Appeals – Affirming the decision of the lower court in Security People, Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit confirmed its ability to decide factual issues when necessary to resolve a constitutional challenge.

Here’s the latest.

The Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions today given the Labor Day holiday.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. Amarin asked the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s judgment of obviousness based on alleged erroneous use of hindsight reasoning. Amarin alleged in its briefs that the district court “fell victim to hindsight” by not “apply[ing] each of the Graham factors, including the common sense objective indicia, before declaring an invention obvious.” Notably, the Federal Circuit granted a Rule 36 summary affirmance yesterday. This is our recap of the oral argument.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order granting panel rehearing to withdraw and replace a prior precedential opinion in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, a patent case addressing joinder of parties and claims in inter partes review proceedings. The court subsequently issued a modified precedential opinion in the case, along with a separate order denying en banc rehearing in the same case. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming the dismissal of another case for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the orders.

• Iancu Says Congress May Be Up For Patent Eligibility Reform – In an effort to enhance clarity and guidance for innovators, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu suggests that Congressional reform of Section 101 of the Patent Act may be the key to providing a more predictable and consistent analytical framework for determining what is patentable and what is not.
• Chanel Adds Camellia Drawing to its Arsenal of Trademarks – This past July, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted trademark registration for Chanel’s five-petaled camellia drawing used in connection with the luxury brand’s products and packaging.
• Apple, Cisco, Google, Intel Sue PTO Over Its America Invents Act Policies – On Monday, Apple Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., and Intel Corp. sued PTO Director Andrei Iancu in the Northern District of California. Using a two-pronged litigation strategy, technology industry giants assert that the current USPTO policies deprive the tech industry of its access to the America Invents Act.

Here’s the latest.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Albright v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. The court addressed the holding by the Court of Federal Claims “that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” Chief Judge Prost and Judges Taranto and Linn heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

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

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., (2) ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.
• Nine briefs were filed in response to the petition in United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC.
• Three replies were submitted to the Court, the first by BioDelivery in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., the second by Chamberlain in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., and the third by Campbell in Campbell v. United States.
• One supplemental brief was filed by Ameranth in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• Lastly, nine waivers of right to respond were submitted to the Court in three cases: (1) United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC, (2) Sanders v. United States, and (3) Michelson v. Department of the Army.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a government contracts case and an international trade case. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions: one dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction and three in patent cases. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.