FedCircuitBlog

• 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.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a review of an arbitrator’s award, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case.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. Highlights include a petition filed in a pro se case; a new response to a petition raising questions related to injunctions; and the denial of four petitions raising questions related to standing, obviousness, and assignor estoppel. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus related to a motion to transfer, and another nonprecedential order denying petitions for writs of mandamus also related to motions to transfer. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

This month we highlight two scholarly articles related to the Federal Circuit.

• A Balanced Consideration of the Federal Circuit’s Choice-of-Law Rule by Jennifer E. Sturiale
• Review of Recent Veterans Law Decisions of the Federal Circuit by Angela Drake, Yelena Duterte, and Stacey-Rae Simcox

Here are the details.

• Federal Circuit Says University Can’t Be Pulled Into Patent Suit – In Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor College of Medicine, sovereign immunity protected a university from being an involuntary plaintiff in a patent suit, but the suit could still proceed without the patent owner.
• Moderna Loses Challenge to Arbutus Patent on Vaccine Technology – Moderna could appeal to the Federal Circuit after a loss that might create obstacles in developing a coronavirus vaccine.
• NFL Team Loses Race to the Trademark Office, but It Might Not Matter – Being first in line to trademark the Redskins’ new team name won’t matter without objective evidence of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce at the time of filing

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a Merit Systems Protection Board case and a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Only one case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted any amicus briefs, Conversant Wireless Licensing v. Apple Inc. This case previously came to the Federal Circuit in 2018 when the court determined that Apple infringed a patent asserted by Conversant. The court, however, remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the patent was unenforceable. On remand, the district court found that the patent was unenforceable, and Conversant now appeals that judgment. This is our argument preview.