FedCircuitBlog

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 the Appointments Clause, marking and notice, and definiteness; one response to a petition raising questions related to collateral estoppel and inter partes review; one request by the Federal Circuit for a response to a petition raising questions related to collateral estoppel and the doctrine of equivalents; and the denial of petitions in three cases (including, notably, Arthrex). 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 thirteen cases raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, venue, and claim construction and the denial of six petitions raising questions related to non-obviousness, anticipation, inherency, procedure, the statutory experimental use exception, and the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in a Vaccine Act case, one precedential opinion in a governments contract case, and one precedential opinion in a Takings Clause case. The court also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a tax case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and three nonprecedential orders. Finally, the court issued seven Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text of the orders, and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include four new petitions, three of which related to Arthrex and another related to obviousness, two responses to petitions raising questions related to the statutory experimental use exception and obviousness, and the denial of three petitions. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include four new petitions related to administrative law, enablement, collateral estoppel, and the doctrine of equivalents; two responses to petitions related to patent eligibility and transfer; one new amicus brief in support of a petition concerning non-obviousness; and the denial of three petitions related to non-obviousness, enablement, written description, and statutory experimental use. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include four new petitions, responses to petitions in two cases (including three responses in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.), and the denial of a petition along with a dissenting opinion in the same case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one order granting en banc rehearing in a trade case, two precedential opinions (one en banc opinion in the trade case and one panel opinion in a patent case), and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here is the text of the order, the introductions to the opinions, and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

As a reminder, once a month we provide an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. Today with respect to these cases we highlight one opinion, briefing in six cases, a recent oral argument, and three upcoming oral arguments. (Note you can always find information related to these cases on our “Other Cases” page.) On to the update.

Once a month we provide an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. Today we highlight recent activity in six such cases. We introduced four of these cases last month in a previous blog post. Of the two new cases, one concerns an attempt to vacate a judgment of non-infringement of a patent in favor of a settlement agreement, and the other questions whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider eligibility challenges to amended patent claims filed in inter partes review proceedings.