FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. New petitions were filed in two patent cases raising questions related to claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents. The court also denied seven petitions in patent cases raising questions related to Rule 36 judgments, injunctive relief, claim construction, awards of attorneys’ fees, eligible subject matter, deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, standing, inter partes review, and enablement. Here are the details.

Next week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. As in the past several months, the court will hear most of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Notably, however, as discussed in our recent post, “Panels B, E, H, K, and N will only be available through the online audio stream” on the Federal Circuit’s new YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene 17 panels to consider about 65 cases. Of these 65 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 43. Of the argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: one in a tax case, one in a patent case, and one in a death benefit case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a nonprecedential errata, and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion, the text of the errata, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Another case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. In this patent case, the Federal Circuit granted Apple’s motion for an interlocutory appeal to review two different district courts’ holdings with respect to an alleged standing problem. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied two petitions raising questions related to inter partes review. That’s it! Here is a summary with links to the relevant case pages for more information.

• 2G or Not 2G: Patent License Applies to Future Generation Wireless Networks – Despite Evolved Wireless’s efforts to limit a licensing agreement for a cellular network patent to 3G Networks, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to give “generation” a broad construction.
• Apple, AT&T, Verizon Keep Patent Validity Suits in California – VoIP-Pal.com was unable to convince the Federal Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Northern District of California to transfer its cases to the Western District of Texas.
• Federal Circuit Says PTAB Wrongly Upheld Cancer Detection Patent – The Federal Circuit overruled the PTAB’s finding of no invalidity of Melanoscan’s patent in Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC.

Here’s the latest.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided In re VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Moore authored a unanimous panel opinion denying VoIP-Pal’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The panel found that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by declining to dismiss the case based on the first-to-file rule. This is our opinion summary.

• Federal Circuit Rules PTAB Erred on Successor-in-Interest Issue in Crocs Case – The Federal Circuit granted a motion to substitute in a case involving a design patent infringement issue between Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC and Crocs, Inc. (Crocs).
• Apple Asks To Postpone March Patent Trial Due To COVID-19 – Apple requested that the Federal Circuit postpone its patent trial to later in 2021 when the trial participants will have had a chance to be vaccinated.

Here’s the latest.

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.

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.