FedCircuitBlog

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 Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc. raising questions related to the Appointments Clause.
• One brief in opposition to the petition in Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. was filed with the Court by Minerva.
• Two reply briefs were filed with the Court, the first by Minerva in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., and the second by Cochlear in Cochlear Corp. v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research.
• Finally, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in two cases: (1) Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc. and (2) Wilkins v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Here are the details.

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

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC, (2) Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC v. Iancu, and (3) Kinghorn v. United States.
• Two new responses to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by the Alfred E. Mann Foundation in Cochlear Corp. v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, and the second by the government in ThermoLife International LLC v. Iancu.
• One new reply to the petition in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC was filed with the Court by Rovi.
• Three amicus briefs were filed in Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., all in support of Idenix.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in three cases: (1) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp., (2) Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc., and (3) Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc.

Here are the details.

• Three Damages Questions for the Supreme Court – Cochlear Corp. petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s damages decision and recently received an amicus brief in support.
• Threshold Issues, Misdirected Lawyering, and a Frustrated Federal Circuit – Earlier this October, the Federal Circuit remanded AntennaSys, Inc., v. AQYR Technologies, Inc. to resolve the claim construction issues left undecided by the lower court and expressing their disdain towards unhelpful arguments from both parties.
• Apple Hit With $503M Verdict In VirnetX Patent Retrial – After the Federal Circuit vacated the damages award, on remand, the lower court jury awarded similar damages against Apple.

Here’s the latest.

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 Supreme Court received three new petitions this week in (1) Cochlear Corporation v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, (2) Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., and (3) Acer America Corporation v. Intellisoft, Ltd.
• Two briefs in response to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Rovi in Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and the second by Facebook in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by Phazzer in Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
• Lastly, two waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in Drevaleva v. United States and Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in five cases raising questions related to claim construction, the Appointments Clause, and obviousness; an invitation for a response in one case raising questions related to inequitable conduct and obviousness; the denial of four petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, venue, damages, and claim construction; and the withdrawal of one petition raising questions related to the Administrative Procedure Act. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in six cases raising questions relating to design patent claim construction, damages, claim construction, eligibility, inequitable conduct, non-obviousness, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; three requests for responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of six petitions raising issues including the Appointments Clause, claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and damages. 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 the Federal Circuit’s denial of en banc rehearing in Arthrex, a Federal Circuit decision upholding a $268 million award in favor of the Alfred Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, and a recent Federal Circuit decision reviewing jury instructions defining the “ordinary observer” in design patent cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of Rule 36 judgments.