FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article covering reactions to the recent recommendation by a special committee of Federal Circuit judges that “Judge Pauline Newman should be disciplined for refusing to comply with orders related to an investigation into her ability to perform her duties”;
• a blog post providing an update on the special committee’s recommendation; and
• an article about how Apple has argued to the Federal Circuit that the “U.S. International Trade Commission’s holding that Apple Watch imports should be banned for infringing another company’s patents risks turning the agency into a standard patent litigation forum, rather than one meant to rein in harmful trade practices.”

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

• an article providing a midyear report on “the most notable trademark decisions so far this year”;
• an article about the effects of a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in a trademark case dealing with tacking;
• a blog post summarizing takeaways from a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in a patent case addressing enablement, written description, and anticipation; and
• a blog post discussing the America Invents Act of 2011 and how it has allegedly given the Chinese government “a lethal tool for snuffing out the business interests of competitive American firms.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing patentable subject matter, a precedential opinion in another patent case addressing an interference involving first-inventor-to-file patents and first-to-invent applications, and a precedential opinion in a veterans case addressing eligibility for veterans benefits. The court also released a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case raising a question related to GI Bill educational assistance. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, one in a patent and one in a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a post-grant review proceeding and addresses claim construction, written description, enablement, and motions to amend practice and procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of an inter partes review and addresses claim construction and anticipation. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released two nonprecedential orders, one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus that would order transfer, and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing co-inventorship. The court also released four nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and three in pro se cases. Additionally, the court released five nonprecedential orders granting summary affirmance and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgment, summary affirmances, and the erratum.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case raising a question related to the First Amendment. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, the Court requested a response to a petition raising a question concerning patent eligibility; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case; a reply brief was filed in a veterans case; and a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising a question concerning inter partes review estoppel. 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, waivers of right to respond were filed in two pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and in two veterans cases; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases; and the Court denied certiorari in three patent cases. 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 discussing the Solicitor General’s amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in a case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and
• an article highlighting takeaways from a recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit addressing analogousness of prior art references.

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

• an article commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi concerning patent law’s enablement requirement;
• an article highlighting the Biden administration urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in Apple v. Caltech, a case presenting a question about inter partes review estoppel;
• a post noting the effects of the Federal Circuit’s holding addressing inducement of infringement by so-called skinny labels in Teva v. GlaxoSmithKline after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case; and
• an article arguing the recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals addressing a limit on what qualifies as analogous prior art “adds to [the] toolbox for patentee prosecution and litigation success.”