FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing a “bill introduced Tuesday by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., aimed at setting more precise rules on which inventions are eligible for patents”;
• another article explaining how the bill “clearly is intended to overrule” the Supreme Court’s recent cases addressing patent eligibility;
• a blog post addressing how “the PTO [will] be revisiting the test for patent subject matter eligibility”; and
• an article discussing a case before the Federal Circuit that involves “a shoemaking process with major implications for both the industry and patent law.”

Guest Post by Kristen Osenga

In any given year, the Federal Circuit covers a wide spectrum of issues in patent law, and 2020 was no different. Of course, a lot about 2020 was different — including seeing the Court hold (and now livestream) telephonic arguments — but most of the patent cases decided were similar in type to other years . . . a little patent-eligible subject matter, a little jurisdiction and venue, a case about infringement of standard essential patents, and a bit of deciding what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can and cannot do. There were no real blockbuster cases in 2020 (other than maybe the Arthrex denial of rehearing, more on that later). This could be due to the pandemic, or maybe it is a sign that patent law is settling in for a bit. Of course, that does not mean the law has settled in the right place, but that is a different issue for a different day.

For today, a few cases are worth highlighting from the Federal Circuit’s 2020 patent opinions. To be clear, this is not an exhaustive review, but rather simply a short selection noting some of the more important patent cases decided last year.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received new reply briefs in two cases that have been granted certiorari: (1) Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. and (2) United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court received five new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new response brief was filed with the Court in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
• One new amicus brief was filed by a non-profit advocacy organization, US Inventor, Inc., in the new case Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Hikma filed a waiver of its right to respond to the petition in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in six cases.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new amicus brief was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance in a case that has been granted certiorari, United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• The Court received eight new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new reply briefs were filed with the Court in the following cases: (1) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., (2) Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc., and (3) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC.
• One new amicus brief was filed in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation by Jonathan Stroud
• Three new waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in ten cases.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

The Supreme Court received petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) Frederick Demond Wilson v. United States, (2) David O. Keel, v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, (3) Chris Jaye v. United States, (4) B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., and (5) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.

Several amicus briefs were filed in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

• Two of Nike’s Flyknit Patents Prevail – Adidas was unable to prove two of Nike’s Flyknit technology patents were unpatentable as obvious.
• Parts of Shoe Illumination Patent Invalidated – In Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, the court affirmed the PTAB’s decision finding the claims obvious.
• Federal Circuit Issues Modifications to Building Access Order – Limited building access now allowed on a case-by-case basis.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Justices Told To Skip Challenge Over Doctrine Of Equivalents – Eli Lilly and Co. is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a challenge of a Federal Circuit ruling over when patent infringement can be found under the doctrine of equivalents.
• The Federal Circuit Clarifies The Notice Requirements Of The Administrative Procedure Act – How do the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act operate in the context of claim amendments during inter partes reviews?
• Uniloc’s Bluetooth Patent Case Against LG Revived – LG Electronics must face revived claims that it infringed a Bluetooth connectivity patent.

Here’s the latest.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights a Federal Circuit decision related to proposed amended patent claims at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to undo harm caused by Fresenius, a comment on the increase of Federal Circuit opinions caused by record oral argument cancellations, and a Federal Circuit decision which sheds new light on Section 101 defenses.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and one precedential opinion in a military case. The Federal Circuit also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the erratum.