FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Recently the Federal Circuit granted en banc review in one veterans case, and last week the en banc court heard oral argument in another veterans case. As for petitions for en banc review in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction. The court also received three new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and the written description requirement. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Here are the details.

Guest Post by Megan M. La Belle†

Forum shopping in patent cases is not a new phenomenon. To be sure, the primary reasons Congress established the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 were to increase uniformity in patent doctrine and reduce forum shopping.1 Instead of eliminating forum shopping, however, the creation of the Federal Circuit merely shifted plaintiffs’ focus from appellate courts to district courts when looking for a friendly forum to pursue patent infringement suits.2

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 how far “the scope of [inter partes review] estoppel expands”;
• another blog post commenting on “[t]he Federal Circuit’s analysis of comparable licenses” for damages purposes in patent cases; and
• an article explaining “mandamus and the battle over venue in modern America.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case and concerns a district court’s refusal to seal certain documents. Notably, Judge Mayer wrote an opinion dissenting from the majority’s decision to vacate and remand the case. The second comes in a government contract case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in employment and veterans cases. Finally, the court released a precedential order transferring an employment case to the District of Maryland. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Last week the court granted en banc reharing in a veteran’s case, and tomorrow the en banc court will hear oral argument in another veteran’s case. As for patent cases, the court received two new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause and the written description requirement, and the court invited a response to a petition raising questions related to conflicts of interest and due process. Finally, in another patent case the court received a new amicus brief supporting a petition raising a question related to claim construction. 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 recently the “Federal Circuit underscore[d] [the] importance of [patent law’s] written description requirement”;
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit “threw out a jury verdict ordering Apple Inc and Broadcom Inc to pay $1.1 billion to the California Institute of Technology” in a patent case;
• another another article assessing how the Federal Circuit “upheld a Michigan judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction” in a patent case; and
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “improperly relied on applicant admitted prior art” in an inter partes review proceeding.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions in patent cases and one nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case. In the first precedential opinion, the court affirmed invalidity decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes review proceedings. In the second precedential opinion, the court affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the latest appeals involving Apple and Wi-LAN. In the third precedential opinion, the court affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded an appeal in a case pitting the California Institute of Technology against Broadcom Ltd. Notably, Judge Dyk concurred-in-part and dissented-in-part from the majority’s holding. Finally, in the court’s nonprecedential opinion it affirmed the cancelation of a trademark registration. Notably, Judge Cunningham authored the nonprecedential opinion, her first for the court. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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, since our last update the Court has not granted any new petitions. Two new petitions, however, have since been filed: one in a patent case concerning patent eligibility and one filed by a pro se petitioner. Additionally, Apple filed a reply in support of a petition raising a question related to standing in patent appeals. Finally, two waivers of right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case holding that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) disclosed within a challenged patent is not “prior art” for the purposes of inter partes review. While the court noted that AAPA is not categorically excluded from inter partes review for all purposes, the court held is not “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” under the relevant statutory provision. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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, since our last update the Court has not granted any new petitions. Three new petitions, however, have since been filed: two in patent cases and one filed by a pro se petitioner. Additionally, a waiver of right to respond to one of the three new petitions was filed, and a brief in opposition was filed in a case that raises a question regarding Article III standing in a series of patent appeals. Here are the details.