FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article observing how the Federal Circuit is “increasingly using the ‘plainly dissimilar’ formulation to affirm summary judgment of noninfringement in design patent cases”;
• a blog post reporting how “the Bar Association for the District of Columbia (BADC) filed an amicus brief supporting Judge Newman’s petition for cert currently before the U.S. Supreme Court”; and
• an article indicating “[p]atent challengers are increasingly ⁠relying on” ex parte reexaminations instead of inter partes reviews.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, one Rule 36 judgment, and one errata. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board discussing the standards to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal. Two of the four nonprecedential opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including one pro se appeal; another comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the fourth comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal, Rule 36 judgment, and errata.

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the International Trade Commission; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Apple appealed from a limited exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission barring the importation of Apple Watches found to infringe patents owned by Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Lourie and Reyna, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the International Trade Commission. This is our summary of the opinion.

This week (and next Monday) is Court week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 14 panels to consider 73 cases. Of the 73 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 55. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. Both come in appeals of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and both address standing. Here are their introductions.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post suggesting a recent Supreme Court copyright-law decision is a “troubling signal for the branded pharmaceutical company trying to hold a generic manufacturer liable for induced patent infringement” in the skinny label case decided by the Federal Circuit;
• a blog post highlighting a recent Federal Circuit “decision regarding recombinant DNA subject-matter eligibility”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision focusing on “whether . . . the patentee is entitled to damages reflecting foreign sales.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in comes in a patent case addressing inventorship. The nonprecedential comes in another patent case addressing anticipation and obviousness. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, seven amicus briefs were filed supporting the respondent. As for pending petitions, since our last update, five new petitions were filed in a patent case, another patent case addressing sanctions, a veterans disability benefits case, a government contracts case, and a pro se case; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and two pro se cases; a reply brief was filed in trademark case; two amicus briefs were filed in a patent case and Trade Act case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a patent case and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

As we reported yesterday, two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in April attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Ollnova Technolodies, Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, a patent case. In it, the patent owner Ollnova appeals a denial of requested prejudgment interest, and the accused infringer Ecobee cross-appeals the lower court’s decisions on jury instructions and multiple issues including eligibility, infringement, damages, and marking. This is our argument preview.