FedCircuitBlog

• No Importing Limitations from Specification in § 101 Analysis -Thomas DaMario recaps the result in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.
• Google Asks Full Fed. Circ. Not To Rehear Venue Ruling – Google urged the Federal Circuit not to rehear In re Google LLC en banc.
• Federal Circuit Revives Cardiac Monitoring Patent – The Federal Circuit held that the claims at issue were not patent ineligible under § 101 in Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions. As far as we can tell, this was not a result of the Star Wars holiday. The federal government has not yet recognized it, at least officially. May the Fourth be with you.

This week (and next Monday) the Federal Circuit will convene 18 panels to consider about 69 cases. This month, like last moth, 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 26 cases being argued this month. Three of these argued cases attracted amicus briefs. Here is what you need to know about those three cases.

The third case being argued this month that attracted an amicus brief is a patent case, Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC. This case is an appeal from an invalidation of patent claims in an inter partes review proceeding. In it, Uniloc argues the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “erred in denying, based only on a § 101 patent eligibility challenge, Uniloc’s motion to amend the patent.” In particular, Uniloc’s position is that § 101 challenges are not permissible in IPRs, even with respect to proposed new claims. This is our argument preview.

Another case being argued this month at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief is Sellers v. Wilkie. In this case, the government appeals the grant of benefits to a veteran. The government alleges that this case presents the question of “[w]hether a claimant’s general statement requesting benefits on a formal claim form that identifies specific disabilities constitutes a claim for all ‘reasonably identifiable’ diagnoses within the claimant’s records.” This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions addressing an award of attorneys’ fees in a patent case and an appeal from an arbitrator’s decision in an employment case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus on the issue of forum non conveniens in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

• Justices Told To Skip Challenge Over Doctrine Of Equivalents – Eli Lilly and Co. is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a challenge of a Federal Circuit ruling over when patent infringement can be found under the doctrine of equivalents.
• The Federal Circuit Clarifies The Notice Requirements Of The Administrative Procedure Act – How do the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act operate in the context of claim amendments during inter partes reviews?
• Uniloc’s Bluetooth Patent Case Against LG Revived – LG Electronics must face revived claims that it infringed a Bluetooth connectivity patent.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued five opinions and one order, all in patent cases. Two of the opinions are precedential, and three are nonprecedential. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The petition in Superior Communications, Inc. v. Voltstar Technologies, Inc. was granted. The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for further consideration in light of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 590 U. S. _ (2020).
• One new Tucker Act petition was filed in Callan Campbell v. United States.
• A new response was filed in both (1) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Company and (2) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company.
• New amicus briefs were filed in (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States and (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission.

Here are the details.

Next week, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in Hardy v. the United States. Hardy v. United States is a takings case on appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. The heart of the dispute concerns whether several deeds at issue granted an interest in fee simple or an easement in the disputed parcels of land. This case attracted one amicus brief discussed further below. Two issues will be presented for the court’s review. Here is a preview of the case and issues on appeal.