FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight new briefing in a patent case and recent oral arguments in a trademark case, a veterans case, and a takings case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two recent opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: one a patent case and one a trade case; three new cases we have identified that attracted amicus briefs: a takings case, a trademark case, and a veterans case; and new briefing in several cases that previously attracted amicus briefs: a new response brief in a patent case, two new reply briefs in patent cases, and supplemental briefing in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight one new Equal Pay Act case, the filing of new briefs in two patent cases, and the filing of new amicus briefs in another patent case. 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 covering reactions to the recent recommendation by a special committee of Federal Circuit judges that “Judge Pauline Newman should be disciplined for refusing to comply with orders related to an investigation into her ability to perform her duties”;
• a blog post providing an update on the special committee’s recommendation; and
• an article about how Apple has argued to the Federal Circuit that the “U.S. International Trade Commission’s holding that Apple Watch imports should be banned for infringing another company’s patents risks turning the agency into a standard patent litigation forum, rather than one meant to rein in harmful trade practices.”

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 “declin[ing] to consider an . . . argument that a ‘dangerous’ precedent will give big tech defendants a license to build inaccurate models of technology that can be used to wipe out patents asserted against them”;
• another article about a case involving the overturning of “a $308.5 million patent verdict against Apple”; and
• a third article explaining that “[a] potential import ban on the Apple Watch is still on the table.”

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 U.S. International Trade Commission finding “Apple Watches with an electrocardiogram (ECG) function infringe patents belonging to medical device maker AliveCor Inc”;
• another article about Amgen Inc.’s arguments to the Supreme Court that “patents needn’t spell out every possible iteration of an invention in order to be eligible for protection”;
• a third article about “VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corp . . . agree[ing] to end a patent dispute in Delaware”; and
• a fourth article about “[t]he Federal Circuit . . . order[ing] a California company to defend patent litigation it filed in Texas, as its competitor in optical filters is asking to have the case transferred.”

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

• a blog post about the Federal Circuit “den[ying] a petition for writ of mandamus asking the Delaware district court to vacate an order to produce certain documents” related to third party funding in patent case; and
• an article about “Pfizer and BioNTech[‘s] . . . countersuit, demanding a jury trial and refuting Moderna’s claims of infringement” of patents related to COVID-19 vaccines.