FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal in a patent case after a jury trial and bench trial in the Western District of Texas. The order transfers a case to a district court. Here is the introduction to the opinion and selected text from the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. That opinion affirms a district court’s summary judgment in a patent case, holding asserted claims invalid for ineligible subject matter. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three petitions, one raising questions related to subject matter eligibility and two raising questions related to the applicable test for non-obviousness of designs under design patent law. The court invited a response to the petitions raising questions related to the applicable test for non-obviousness of designs under design patent law. Finally, the court denied a petition raising a question related to claim construction. 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:

• a blog post about how “the Federal Circuit . . . revived an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the Fintiv decision on discretionary denial” of petitions for inter partes review;
• an article about the Federal Circuit also “reviv[ing] a patent-infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc.” after a stipulation of non-infringement based on a district court’s claim constructions; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit opinion “determining that the PTAB required too much evidence to establish a motivation to combine prior art.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the first opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Northern District of California a case where Apple and other companies are challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s so-called Fintiv factors and, in particular, in the decision whether to institute inter partes review proceedings the role of the pendency of district-court infringement litigation involving the same patents. In the second opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware. In the third opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a judgment in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the order and Rule 36 judgment.

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.”

This morning and late yesterday the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three orders dismissing appeals. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from Southern District of Texas that was dismissed for failure to state a claim. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court recently granted the motion of the Solicitor General leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the pending patent case addressing the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a pro se case and another in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a trade case; one amicus brief was filed in a trademark case and three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case (including, interestingly, an amicus brief on behalf of retired federal appellate judges); and the Court denied six petitions in various patent, veterans, and pro se cases. Here are the details. 

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court issued a long-awaited opinion last week in an employment case addressing the question of whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to claim construction and denied a petition in a case raising a question related to the terms of a protective order. 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 about a Federal Circuit decision finding “[a] Texas federal court ‘clearly abused its discretion’ when declining to transfer a patent-infringement lawsuit against Google LLC”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit “vacat[ing] what it called an ‘extraordinarily high’ legal-fee award of $185 million”; and
• a third article about how a “Virginia federal judge issued a bench trial ruling Monday that ImmunoGen is not entitled to a patent on a cancer treatment . . . after the Federal Circuit vacated the court’s previous decision and ordered a trial.”