FedCircuitBlog

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 the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in a patent case addressing the written description requirement and ownership of patents;
• another blog post explaining how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to address a challenge to the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate ex parte reexaminations based on estoppel; and
• an article assessing the Federal Circuit’s recent determination that “claims of a patent relating to methods for treating acne are invalid because they would be obvious to someone skilled in the field.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued six precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Virginia. The second comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The third and fourth come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fifth and sixth come in Tucker Act and tax cases respectively appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the court issues a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• a blog post explaining how a company that was “denied institution on three inter partes review (IPR) petitions . . . could not simply ‘repackage’ arguments raised in its IPR petition to challenge the same patent via ex parte reexamination”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit keeps on laying down rules of the road for U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas when it comes to transferring cases to California”;
• a post discussing whether a recent Federal Circuit opinion “may be hinting that willful blindness isn’t enough, by itself, for willful [patent] infringement”; and
• another blog post noting tension between how the Federal Circuit reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and its own practice with respect to Rule 36 summary affirmances.

• NYIPLA Amicus Brief in Ericsson v. Samsung Advocates the Adjudication of U.S. Patent Rights by U.S. Courts – The New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) recently submitted an amicus brief urging the Federal Circuit to balance the interests of the U.S. in resolving domestic patent protection against the rule of comity.
• Vivint Patent Ruling Upheld Over Belated Appointments Argument – The Federal Circuit ruled that Vivint forfeited the constitutional arguments from Arthrex when it failed to raise such arguments on appeal, even though Arthrex had not yet been issued at the time of the appeal.
• Banks Face Lawsuit ‘Frenzy’ After Business Patent Reviews End – In the last eight months, nearly three times as many patent suits involving financial services patents have been filed against banks and e-commerce companies after the PTO’s covered business method review program expired last September.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued six nonprecedential opinions: four in patent cases, one in a tax case affirming a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.