FedCircuitBlog

CAFC Affirms Improper Venue Ruling in Victoria’s Secrets’ Favor – On IPWatchDog, Matthew Schutte posted an article reporting on a Federal Circuit decision to affirm the grant of a motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit based on improper venue.

Judge Albright will Keep the Google and Apple Cases – In a post on PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch offers his thoughts on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision not to order Judge Albright to transfer certain patent cases.

Arthrex-Based TTAB Challenge Meets Dubious Federal Circuit Panel – Kyle Jahner reports for Bloomberg that “[a] piano company trying to revive its trademark encountered a Federal Circuit skeptical of its argument.”

Shell, ARCO, Texaco, Unocal Win $100 Million WWII Cleanup Appeal – In this article on BloombergLaw.com, Daniel Seiden reports on the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Shell Oil Co. v. United States.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case asking a question related to inter partes review, and the Court requested a response in another patent case involving inter partes review. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case, a nonprecedential opinion affirming the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The court also issued three nonprecedential orders, including two orders in patent cases denying petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer the underlying cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

How J.E.M. and Chakrabarty Make the Case for DABUS – Kirk Hartung wrote an article for IPWatchDog about J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc., v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Diamond v. Chakrabarty, discussing their impact on patent protection with resect to inventions created using artificial intelligence.

Teva to Defend Ruling Allowing Narcan Generic at Federal Circuit – Perry Cooper posted an article on BloombergLaw reporting that a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit will consider an appeal in Adapt Pharma Operations v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. and if the decision is upheld, “[Narcan] generics can come to market 15 years sooner.”

Apple Asks SCOTUS to Hear Inter Partes Review Appeal – In an article on LawStreetMedia, Christina Tabacco writes about a case involving Apple and Optis Cellular Technology LLC, Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, and Unwired Planet International Limited.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court did not receive any new en banc filings last week. The court did, however, issue denials in parallel patent cases concerning competitor standing. Here are the details.

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 one disposition in a veterans law case, two oral argument recaps in a patent case and a veterans law case, four new patent cases, a patent case with new briefing, and four upcoming oral arguments in related Tucker Act cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Last week the Supreme Court completed its October 2020 term, with all cases from the term decided. As for the Court’s October 2021 term, currently the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. That said, many petitions are still pending. And, you may recall, the Court previously requested the views of the Solicitor General in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility. We are still waiting for the government’s brief in that case. And since our last update, one new petition was filed in a patent case, two respondents submitted waivers of right to respond in a patent case and a pro se case, and a petitioner filed a reply brief in a vaccine case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case vacating a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination of obviousness and remanding the case for reconsideration. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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.”