FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case raising a question related to GI Bill educational assistance. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, one in a patent and one in a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, three waivers of the right to respond were filed in pro se cases; a reply brief was filed in a patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in a pro se and a veterans case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, waivers of right to respond were filed in two pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and in two veterans cases; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases; and the Court denied certiorari in three patent cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, most notably the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief expressing the view of the United States that the Court should grant review in two patent cases. No new petitions were filed, but the government waived its right to respond to two petitions and a party filed a supplemental brief in response to the Solicitor General’s amicus brief recommending the Court grant review in a patent case raising a question about so-called skinny labelling. 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 a Supreme Court petition asking the Court “to weigh whether former Commissioner of Patents . . . had the power to reject a request for director review”;
• another article about another petition filed with the Supreme Court asking it “to review a Federal Circuit decision affirming the partial invalidation of a footwear stitching patent challenged by rival Adidas AG”; and
• a blog post commenting on “AI tools creating inventive output.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, on Monday the Court heard oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court in three patent cases and a pro se case. The Court also denied three petitions. Here are the details. 

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to the standard for claim construction. The court also denied a petition in a case raising a question related to burden of persuasion in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising a question related to the burden of persuasion in inter partes review proceedings. That’s it. 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 reporting how the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “did not improperly place the burden of persuasion for proving unpatentability of proposed substitute claims . . . on [the patent owner].”
• another article highlighting an upcoming Federal Circuit argument concerning constitutional standing; and
• a blog post discussing “the scope of ‘comparison prior art’ available for the ordinary observer infringement analysis” in design patent cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the opinion, the court explains that it affirms both the Board’s finding that a substitute claim is unpatentable as obvious and the Board’s denial of a motion to amend. Here is the introduction to the opinion.