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 about a Federal Circuit decision finding “an isolated form of vitamin B3″ to be “unpatentable subject matter under Section 101”;
• an article about Optis Cellular urging the Federal Circuit “not to reverse a Texas federal jury’s nine-figure infringement judgment against Apple, Inc.”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit “reviv[ing] a long-running infringement lawsuit Bard brought against Pennsylvania-based Medical Components Inc.”

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 potential impact on the value of patents for universities if the Supreme Court grants review in a recent case decided by the Federal Circuit;
• another article reporting how “U.S. District Judge Alan Albright won’t transfer a cryptographic data technology patent suit against Microsoft Corp.”; and
• a blog post about a district court finding a patent that “covers a process for allowing users to upload ‘dynamic albums’ to be stored on their devices” to be patent ineligible.

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 six new cases, three of which involve petitions for writs of mandamus that were ultimately denied by the Federal Circuit. Additionally, we highlight an opinion in a government contract case and a patent case with a new briefing. 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 the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Solicitor General “to provide its views on [a] petition asking the High Court to clarify the proper application of estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• an article about the Federal Circuit rejecting a “claim that the U.S. Supreme Court has implicitly overruled key design patent validity tests”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision that “overturned an earlier decision that would have allowed veterans to receive up to an additional year of education.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that a patent is unenforceable based on prosecution laches. Notably, Judge Stark filed a dissenting opinion. The two nonprecedential opinions come in separate patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal, both involving the same parties. In each opinion, Judge Lourie filed additional views and Judge Stark filed a concurring opinion, both addressing the argument the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s approach to obviousness with respect to design patents. Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released six nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

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

• an article about how a “Federal Circuit panel . . . seemed wary that . . . large companies used a roundabout way to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Fintiv policy”;
• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding that two patents “for remote education and training systems is patent ineligible”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit upholding a lower court’s decision related to Amazon.com Inc.’s virtual assistant Alexa.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, although no new petitions were filed, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case related to inter partes review estoppel. 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 bid by Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Corp and others to revive their challenge to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that made it harder to contest the validity of patents issued by the agency”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s skepticism about “allegations that [Facebook’s] news feed infringed on Usability Sciences’ 2014 patent”; and
• a blog post about the Federal Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Amazon.com, Inc.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene twelve panels to consider 47 cases. Of these 47 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 38. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. Of the argued cases, two cases attracted amicus briefs. One concerns judicial review of factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. The other addresses whether the President exceeded his statutory authority in an international trade case. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

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 U.S. International Trade Commission finding “Apple Watches with an electrocardiogram (ECG) function infringe patents belonging to medical device maker AliveCor Inc”;
• another article about Amgen Inc.’s arguments to the Supreme Court that “patents needn’t spell out every possible iteration of an invention in order to be eligible for protection”;
• a third article about “VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corp . . . agree[ing] to end a patent dispute in Delaware”; and
• a fourth article about “[t]he Federal Circuit . . . order[ing] a California company to defend patent litigation it filed in Texas, as its competitor in optical filters is asking to have the case transferred.”