FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases, one precedential opinion in a takings case, and one precedential opinion in a trade 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 a new petition by a pro se appellant and the denial of two petitions in cases raising questions related to standing and obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

• Federal Circuit Denies Uniloc’s Motion to Seal Documents – In Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s no-seal order, with the exception of third party licensees who were promised confidentiality.
• Toyota Fails to Revive Patent on Fingerprint-Reducing Coating – On Friday, the Federal Circuit agreed with PTAB’s conclusion that Toyota’s patent for reducing fingerprints on touchscreens was invalid for obviousness in Toyota Motor Corp. v. Reactive Surfaces Ltd.
• Federal Circuit’s Ruling Could Make it Easier to Prove Infringement of SEPs – In Godo Kaisha IP Bridge I v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., the Federal Circuit seemed unconvinced by TCL’s oral argument against the district court’s finding that TCL infringed two IP Bridge patents.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in an antitrust case and one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, and two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the judgments.

• Federal Circuit Keeps Expanding Appointments Decision – The Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. decision was broadened to also encompass ex parte appeals according to the Federal Circuit’s precedential ruling in In re Boloro Global Ltd. on Tuesday.
• BofA’s $173M Refund Suit Belongs In Claims Court – The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded Bank of America Corp. v. United States to the Court of Federal claims because the district court lacked standing under Section 1346(a)(1) of the U.S. Judicial Code.
• Fitbit Given Another Shot At Nixing Biometrics Patent – Fitbit, pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion in Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., was granted a second chance to invalidate all of Valencell’s claims because of an erroneous standing ruling by the PTAB.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• The following five new petitions were submitted to the Court: (1) Primbas, et al. v. Iancu, (2) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., et al., (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., (4) Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., and (5) Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Also, in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Willowood, LLC submitted its reply to Syngenta’s brief in opposition. Willowood claims Syngenta’s brief avoids the key issues raised in the petition.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court received two waivers of right to respond for the petitions of Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank and Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in a Tucker Act case and patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.