FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in three cases raising questions related to standing, obviousness, and eligibility; a new invitation for a response in a case raising questions related to obviousness; two new amicus briefs in cases raising questions related to claim construction, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; and the denial of seven petitions raising questions related to claim construction, eligibility, novelty, non-obviousness, and the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus related to a motion to transfer. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the order.

• Patent Lawsuits on the Rise – Even with the disruption due to the coronavirus, patent lawsuits are up 9% year-over-year.
• Google and Sonos at odds over Wireless Speakers Fight – Google countersued Sonos over an alleged patent infringement in an escalating legal battle between the two companies.
• Federal Circuit finds no infringement in an Interactive Guitar Game– The court in Ubisoft Entertainment, S.A. v. Yousician Oy, affirmed the dismissal of Yousician’s claims of infringement because the claimed invention was improperly directed to an abstract idea.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in government contracts cases, one precedential opinion in a trade case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued six nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgments.

This month the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in two related cases that attracted amicus briefs, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. v. Alkem Laboratories Limited. In these cases, the court confronted breach of contract and patent infringement claims against two different alleged infringers–Mylan and Alkem. As we noted in our argument preview, Takeda argues that Section 1.2(d) of license agreements with the accused infringers does not allow for the production of generic versions of Takeda’s patented product at this time. Mylan and Alkem, along with the district court, disagree. The Federal Circuit consolidated the cases for argument purposes only, and the parties presented their arguments to a panel including Chief Judge Prost and Judges Newman and Hughes. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one nonprecedential erratum. The court also issued two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the erratum, and the Rule 36 judgments.

• Federal Circuit Sidesteps Notice Issue – In Iron Oak Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, the Federal Circuit limited its decision regarding notice only to Microsoft and refused to decide whether manufacturers related to Microsoft received sufficient infringement notice.
• District Court Abused Its Discretion in Granting Attorney’s Fees – An award of attorney’s fees in Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv n’ Care, Ltd. was reversed by the Federal Circuit for failing to prove infringement claims were “sufficiently meritless.”
• Chrimar Systems v. ALE USA Inc. – Charimar Systems seeks Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. ALE USA Inc.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; one precedential opinion in a veterans case; two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases; and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• One new petition for certiorari was filed in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two briefs in opposition were filed. One brief from Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp. and the other from the United States.
• The Supreme Court received a total of five amicus briefs this week. Four amicus briefs in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and one amicus brief in Callan Campbell v. United States.
• In Ford Motor Co. v. United States, Ford submitted its reply to the United States’ brief in opposition.

Here are the details.