FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new response to a petition raising questions concerning inducement of infringement and skinny-labeling along with the denial of five petitions raising questions related to issue preclusion and public disclosures under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Connecticut, while the second precedential opinion comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Both nonprecedential opinions affirm orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order comes in a patent case involving a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post discussing a case set for argument this week in which the “Federal Circuit is set to decide an important issue regarding the scope of prior art that can be considered during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• an article reporting how the Supreme Court recently “turned down several petitions seeking review of decisions in patent cases, including appeals dealing with double patenting, patent eligibility and Patent Trial and Appeal Board procedures”; and
• an article highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision vacating and remanding a case because the lower court “wrongly dismissed” a claim “seeking a refund on tax penalties.”

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 67 cases. Of the 67 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 50 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel.  Notably, half of the panels will convene in and around San Francisco. These panels will take place at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law; the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco; Stanford Law School; Santa Clara University School of Law; and the San Francisco and San Jose locations of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The remaining six panels will convene at the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion comes in a contract case and reverses and remands a final decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The second precedential opinion comes in a tax case “involv[ing] the procedural mechanisms for filing a tax refund for penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.” The nonprecedential opinion affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and dismisses-in-part a case addressing allegedl federal trade dress infringement and federal trademark liability for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion yesterday in Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., a Lanham Act case that we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for Crocs against Dawgs’ counterclaim alleging false advertising violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Crocs based on Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent it interpreted as legally barring Dawgs’ counterclaim. The Federal Circuit, however, reversed and remanded the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Reyna that was joined by Judge Cunningham and Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas, who sat by designation. This is our opinion summary.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing the presentation of an “annual Pauline Newman Award” by IPWatchdog that included a discussion involving former Federal Circuit Judge Paul Michel and Judge Newman;
• an article discussing the Federal CIrcuit’s recent decision to revive “a footwear company’s claim accusing Crocs Inc. of making misleading promotional statements about ‘patented’ foam material”; and
• a blog post suggesting another recent Federal Circuit decision “underscores the high evidentiary bar patentees must clear to invoke the entire market value rule, especially for complex, multi-component products.”

As we have highlighted this week, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission. In this case, US Synthetic appeals a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a patent case decided by the District of Colorado. Notably, the Federal Circuit held “that a cause of action arises” under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act “where a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product.” The three orders are all dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.