FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. This week’s only update is that there is a new response to a petition raising questions related to the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to the Federal Circuit’s review of the grant of a motion for attorneys’ fees. Additionally, the court invited a response to a petition raising questions regarding the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. Finally, the court denied a petition presenting a question regarding the effect of a remand overturning a holding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on which a patent owner relied in drafting amended claims. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new amicus briefs supporting a petition raising questions regarding the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. The court also denied a petition for en banc rehearing raising questions about inducement of infringement and skinny-labeling. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a grant of en banc rehearing to address a damages experts’ reliance on comparable licenses. In addition, three new petitions raise questions concerning inducement of infringement and skinny-labeling, the effect of a remand overturning a holding on which Patent Owner relied in drafting its amended claims, the written description requirement, and obvious-type double patenting. Related to these new petitions, we also report on a new response, a new reply, and three new amicus briefs. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, one Rule 36 judgment, and four nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion reverses a judgment of the District of Delaware in a patent case, while the second grants a petition for panel rehearing in a trade case appealed the Court of International Trade. The first nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, while the second affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. All of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and orders.