FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a nonprecedential order denying a petition for patent and en banc rehearing in a patent infringement case, along with a nonprecedential opinion by Judges Lourie, Prost, and Hughes concerning the denial of panel rehearing and the argument their panel decision changed the law of enablement; and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the summary afirmances.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. It was a busy week at the Federal Circuit. The court received two new petitions in cases addressing issues of enablement, eligibility, and personal jurisdiction. Additionally, the court invited responses in three cases addressing termination of inter partes review proceedings, evaluation of expert opinions on summary judgment, and competitor standing. The court also received a response to a petition raising a question related to enablement. Lastly, the court issued two new denials, one in a case concerning 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and another in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. While there were no recent petitions, responses to petitions, or denials of petitions, the court did receive several amicus briefs. One amicus brief came in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., a case concerning the panel’s decision to deny competitor standing in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Three came in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, where the petition raised questions related to “the panel’s new enablement test for genus claims with functional limitations” and whether that test is consistent with Supreme Court precedent on point. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received and invited a response to a new petition raising questions related to enablement. The court also denied three petitions raising questions related definiteness, intervening rights, willfulness, unclean hands, claim construction, and the doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases attracted 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 dispositions, one in a veterans case addressing allegations of delay violating due process and one in a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. We also highlight two new patent cases, one addressing claim construction and the non-obviousness requirement and the other addressing the first-to-file rule and patent eligibility. We also note three upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. Judge Lourie authored the unanimous opinion, which affirmed a district court’s judgment as a matter of law of lack of enablement. The Federal Circuit agreed that undue experimentation would be required to practice the full scope of antibody claims in Amgen’s patents. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one precedential order granting a motion to substitute a successor-in-interest in a design patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Here is this month’s 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 a disposition in a takings case, a patent case attracting an amicus brief on the issue of the non-obviousness requirement, new briefing in a patent case challenging post-grant review proceedings as violating due process, and four recent oral arguments in cases raising questions related to patent, takings, and veterans law. Here are the details.

• Fed. Circ. Again Says No State Sovereign Immunity In IPRs – In Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Baylor College of Medicine, the Federal Circuit held that plaintiffs can request inter partes reviews of state universities’ patents and sovereign immunity does not apply.
• Federal Circuit Tries to Wrap Its Arms Around Functional Biotech Patent Claims – The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments last Wednesday and focused on the application of the enablement requirement to Amgen’s patent covering therapeutic antibodies.
• Del. Chief Urges Creativity When Litigating Patent Eligibility – Chief Judge Leonard Stark addressed the resolution of patent eligibility issues within litigation during a panel discussion on Friday.

Here’s the latest.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of the patent cases, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the court considered the enablement requirement with respect to antibody claims. This is our argument recap.