FedCircuitBlog

• Three Damages Questions for the Supreme Court – Cochlear Corp. petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s damages decision and recently received an amicus brief in support.
• Threshold Issues, Misdirected Lawyering, and a Frustrated Federal Circuit – Earlier this October, the Federal Circuit remanded AntennaSys, Inc., v. AQYR Technologies, Inc. to resolve the claim construction issues left undecided by the lower court and expressing their disdain towards unhelpful arguments from both parties.
• Apple Hit With $503M Verdict In VirnetX Patent Retrial – After the Federal Circuit vacated the damages award, on remand, the lower court jury awarded similar damages against Apple.

Here’s the latest.

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 three dispositions in patent cases addressing estoppel related to inter partes review, anticipation, and induced infringement; new briefing in another patent case related to standing; one recent oral argument in a patent case addressing personal jurisdiction; and four upcoming oral arguments in veterans and government contracts cases.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court heard oral argument in a veterans case last week. As for petitions for en banc consideration in patent cases, a new petition was filed in a case raising questions related to literal infringement and claim construction; the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to sanctions; and the court denied two petitions, one in a pro se case and one raising a question related to non-obviousness. Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Mantissa Corp. v. Ondot Systems, Inc., (2) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and (3) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.
• Three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Actavis in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., the second by CBS in Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., and the third by Biomarin in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 19 different petitions this week.

Here are the details.

• A Patent Crisis—Supreme Court Can Help America Compete Again – Former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, Randall Rader, discusses the need for a strong patent system in the United States in light of recent decisions and international competition.
• Federal Circuit Shoots Down Apple Bid to Strike Certain Voip-Pal Claims Upheld by PTAB – The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding of validity of Voip-Pal’s patent and upheld the sanctions granted against Apple in Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pail.com, Inc.
• IP at the Supreme Court: 2 Big Cases and a Lot of Long Shots – With the Supreme Court already granting certiorari to one case appealed from the Federal Circuit, other cases may also warrant review by the nation’s highest court.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential opinion in a case concerning false advertising and the Lanham Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In one of the two pending en banc cases addressing veterans law, the court requested the parties file supplemental briefs to address concerns with Article III standing. Other updates include new petitions raising questions related to patent marking, expert testimony, willful infringement, and sanctions; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising a question related to remedies; a new amicus brief in a case raising a question related to double-patenting; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and claim construction. Here are the details.

• Apple and Uniloc to Spar at Federal Circuit Over ‘Judge-Shopping’ – Apple and Uniloc are scheduled to appear before the Federal Circuit for a rare oral argument on a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• PTAB Strategies and Insights – September 2020: Does the Federal Circuit Treat APA Challenges Differently if Brought by Petitioner vs. Patent Owner? Yes. – The Federal Circuit came to different conclusions when examining final written decisions appealed by a patent owner as opposed to a petitioner.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In one of the two cases in which the court has granted en banc hearings, the National Organization of Veterans Advocates filed a reply brief. In cases with pending petitions for en banc consideration, highlights include responses to two petitions raising issues related to patent eligibility and inventorship, and a voluntary withdrawal of a petition related to venue.

• Iancu Says Congress May Be Up For Patent Eligibility Reform – In an effort to enhance clarity and guidance for innovators, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu suggests that Congressional reform of Section 101 of the Patent Act may be the key to providing a more predictable and consistent analytical framework for determining what is patentable and what is not.
• Chanel Adds Camellia Drawing to its Arsenal of Trademarks – This past July, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted trademark registration for Chanel’s five-petaled camellia drawing used in connection with the luxury brand’s products and packaging.
• Apple, Cisco, Google, Intel Sue PTO Over Its America Invents Act Policies – On Monday, Apple Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., and Intel Corp. sued PTO Director Andrei Iancu in the Northern District of California. Using a two-pronged litigation strategy, technology industry giants assert that the current USPTO policies deprive the tech industry of its access to the America Invents Act.

Here’s the latest.