FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post discussing a recently filed petition for a writ of certiorari of a “May 2023 decision by the Federal Circuit that invalidated claims . . . covering method of treating Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder”;
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling “that a Georgia inventor’s car remote-starter patent that his company alleges was infringed by BMW AG is invalid in light of two previously published inventions”; and
• an article about how the Federal Circuit “denied Charles Bertini’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to decide his trademark cancellation case against Apple, Inc.”

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this patent case, Personalized Media Communications challenged a district court’s decision to overturn a jury verdict based on the equitable doctrine of prosecution latches. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Chen and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling.

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.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, Amgen filed its opening merits brief in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, which concerns patent law’s enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, although no new petitions were filed with the Court, a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel, and another reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in two patent cases related to so-called skinny labelling and eligibility, respectively; a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement; a reply brief was submitted in a veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; and, finally, the Court denied more than 20 petitions. 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 discussing how the Federal Circuit determined that an “Apple Inc lawsuit . . . over Wi-Fi messaging can move forward in California”;
• another article detailing how “the CAFC concluded that the district court’s constructions incorrectly limited claim scope to a preferred embodiment and rendered certain dependent claims superfluous”; and
• yet another article explaining how, in Intel Corp v XMTT, Inc., “Intel was dealt a loss in its challenge of a computer memory patent when the Federal Circuit on Tuesday refused to consider the tech company’s arguments that the court said were ‘clearly inconsistent’ with what it presented to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”

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 veterans case, two new patent cases that attracted amicus briefs, and a reply brief in a 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 explaining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas, which dismissed a complaint based on ineligibility of the asserted patent claims;
• another article detailing how the Federal Circuit released a corrected decision that provides clarity on the question of estoppel based on inter partes review; and
• a third article assessing how “[e]x parte reexaminations have re-emerged as an increasingly important component of patent litigation and licensing negotiations.”

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 three opinions: the first in an Equal Access to Justice Act case, the second granting petitions seeking writs of mandamus challenging orders of the Western District of Texas regarding transfer motions, and the third in a trademark case. We also highlight a response brief filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court granted certiorari in a patent case, but notably it did so only to vacate the Federal Circuit’s judgment and remand the case for further consideration of an alleged Appointments Clause violation. Other than that, since our last post one reply in support of a petition has been filed in a veterans case and a waiver of right to respond has been filed in a patent case. Additionally, the Court denied two petitions in cases involving takings claims. Here are the details.