FedCircuitBlog

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 a veterans case addressing the applicability of equitable tolling to a particular statutory provision. The court received a response to a petition in a patent case, which raised a question related to competitor standing. Finally, the court denied rehearing in a case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement. Here are the details.

Federal Circuit affirms decision to toss iPhone dual-camera patent lawsuit – Mike Peterson posted a piece on AppleInsider.com discussing a recent win by Apple at the Federal Circuit on the issue of patent eligibility, where the court found patent claims to be directed to an abstract idea.

Alice Ax Of TV Patent Defied Precedent, Full Fed. Circ. Told – An article on Law360.com discussed a recent petition seeking rehearing on another decision by a Federal Circuit panel on the issue of patent eligibility, where the court also found patent claims to be directed to an abstract idea.

Piercing Halo’s Haze at Year Five: Smoke Clearing on Enhanced Damages – On IPWatchDog.com, Michael Cicero reports on the impact of the Supreme Court’s Halo decision on patentees.

Even Feds With Lifetime Tenure Can Be Fired for Cause, Court Rules – In an article on GovExec.com, Eric Katz explained how in a recent precedential decision the Federal Circuit decided that dismissal of federal employees “does not require a special procedure.”

Today the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a decision of ineligibility in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Newman dissented. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

VirnetX Attacks Apple’s PTAB Win At Fed. Circ. – Andrew Karpan reported for Law360 on VirnetX’s attempt to overturn a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that if affirmed would undermine its $576 million patent infringement judgment against Apple.

Marathon, Others Defend Patent Case Fee Award at Federal Circuit – In her article on Bloomberg.com, Perry Cooper discusses a three judge panel of the Federal Circuit who “listened to arguments about a $5 million attorneys’ fee award in a fracking patent case.”

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (June 1-4): Prosecution Disclaimer – What’s Good for the Goose… – In this post on FederalCircuitry, Rachel Rice picked opinions released by the Federal Circuit that have “piqued [her] interest” to discuss.

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.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion reversing a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one in a veterans case and one in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. We are still waiting for the court to issue an opinion in Arellano v. McDonough, an en banc veterans case. As for pending petitions in patent cases, highlights include new petitions concerning Patent Trial and Appeal Board termination of inter partes review proceedings, reviewability of Board discovery rulings related to real-party-in-interest disputes, the utilization of expert witnesses in district court summary judgment proceedings, and standing before the Board. Here are the details.

• Federal Circuit Affirms Decision to Vacate Judgment Following Evidence of Fraud – Joseph Marinelli at JDSupra.com commented on a recent decision by the Federal Circuit that may have implications in future attempts to vacate a final judgments based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.
• Federal Circuit Revives Trimble Patent Claims in Jurisdiction Ruling – Blake Brittain from Reuters reported about the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• License Agreement Not Enough for Standing on Appeal of an IPR Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. – Alexandra Leigh Lodge and George E. Quillin reported for NationalLawReview.com about how Apple was unable to prove that it had standing to appeal final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Here is the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one precedential opinion in patent case appealed from a district court, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance of a decision by the United State International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions of the opinions and the summary affirmance.