FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the court held in part that “the trial court properly applied the stabilization doctrine to this case and did not clearly err” in determining the timing of when the taking accrued. The court, however, vacated the trial court’s denial of crop damages and its finding that the government did not causally contribute to certain flooding and remanded the case. In addition, this morning the court also released an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the erratum.

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

• an article highlighting aspects of the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge;
• an article expressing dissatisfaction with a recent Federal Circuit decision concerning the patentability of claimed ranges where the prior art discloses overlapping ranges; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision concerning what constitutes a dispute from which a government contractor may seek immediate relief.

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

• an article about an “appeal seeking to revive a patent covering [a] Parkinson’s disease drug Neupro”; and
• another article discussing how four law professors argue the “Supreme Court should weigh in on whether artificial intelligence systems can produce patentable inventions.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. In the first two precedential opinions, the court affirmed judgments of the Central District of California and District of Delaware in patent cases. In the third precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of the District of Delaware in another patent case. In the fourth precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed, vacated, and remanded a judgment of the Northern District of Georgia in still another patent case. In the fifth precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Court of International Trade. In the nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• Two briefs in response to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Comcast in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and the second by the government in Strand v. United States.
• One waiver of right to respond to the petition in Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc. was filed with the Court by Tenant Turner.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.

Here are the details.

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

• One new petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court in Rutila v. Department of Transportation.
• Two reply briefs were filed with the Court, the first by HZNP in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. and the second by Whitserve in Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc.
• One amicus brief was filed with the Court in Cochlear Corp. v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research by a group of Intellectual Property Professors.
• Finally, one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court by RPX in IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.

Here are the details.

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

• The Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Mantissa Corp. v. Ondot Systems, Inc., (2) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and (3) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.
• Three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Actavis in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., the second by CBS in Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., and the third by Biomarin in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 19 different petitions this week.

Here are the details.

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

• In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Google and Oracle submitted supplemental briefs addressing the correct standard of review for the second question presented in the case.
• The following two petitions for writ of certiorari were submitted to the Supreme Court: (1) Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. and (2) Essity Hygiene and Health AB v. Cascades Canada ULC.
• Arthrex, Inc. submitted its reply to the Court in the Appointments Clause petition Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
• In The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Techtronic filed its brief in opposition to the petitioner’s argument for granting certiorari.

Here are the details.

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

• The Supreme Court received the four new petitions for writs of certiorari in (1) Strand v. United States, (2) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corp., (3) HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., and (4) Martin v. Department of Homeland Security.
• Both the United States in Campbell v. United States and Ericsson, Inc. in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson submitted briefs in opposition to petitions.
• Two replies were submitted to the Court, the first by Andrea Lea in Lea v. United States and the second by Jake LaTurner in LaTurner v. United States.
• Five amicus briefs were filed in three cases: (1) United States v. Arthrex, Inc., (2) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., and (3) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co.

Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights an article about the Supreme Court’s rejection of Apple’s petition for certiorari in one of its cases against VirnetX, a comment on the Federal Circuit’s treatment of “consisting essentially of” language in patent claims, and an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s rejection of an en banc petition in a case vacated in light of Arthrex.