FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential opinion in a case concerning false advertising and the Lanham Act.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

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a government contracts case and an international trade case. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions: one dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction and three in patent cases. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

• Three lessons from the Federal Circuit’s recent 101 reversal in XY v Trans Ova Genetics – Partner John O’Quinn and Associate Hannah Bedard from Kirkland & Ellis delve into the key aspects and lessons to take away from the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision in XY v. Trans Ova Genetics.
• Court of Appeals Upholds Mighty Mug’s Trade Victory Against Patent-Infringing Chinese Imports – Mighty Mug, represented by Goetz Fitzpatrick, secured a victory in a fight against infringers who have been flooding the market with cheap knockoffs to Mighty Mug’s popular drinkware line.
• Apple v. Prepear: Does Apple Really Need All the Fruit? – The large tech company, Apple, claims that an image of a pear used in connection with a meal preparation app called Prepear is likely to cause consumer confusion and threatens to dilute the quality of its famous and distinctive mark. Nicole Page of IP Watchdog provides an inside glimpse into Apple’s newest opponent in its “battle for brand supremacy.”

Here’s the latest.

• Qualcomm Urges Fed Circuit to Keep PTAB Win Against Apple – Arguing that Apple is now trying to “manufacture a legal issue,” Qualcomm maintains that the PTAB correctly upheld its patent on a touch-screen function that allows users to toggle between multiple windows.
• CAFC Affirms Sanctions Entered Against Overly Litigious Doctors – Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a district court decision in Kahn v. Hemisphere Inc, which involved an action for patent infringement regarding an arteriovenous shunt.
• Government Reliance on Waiver Argument to Keep Price Adjustment Windfall Fails – In articulating limits to the government’s ability to rely on the waiver doctrine to enforce Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) provisions of questionable legality, the Federal Circuit in effect challenges the government’s approach to measuring the impact of cost accounting practices changes.

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 five dispositions, three cases with new briefing, one recent oral argument, and two upcoming oral arguments.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Conversant Wireless Licensing v. Apple Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the court addressed a district court’s holding that Conversant’s ’151 patent is unenforceable because Nokia, the original patentee, made an untimely disclosure of the patent to the ETSI standards setting body. On appeal, Conversant argues that implied waiver of enforceability requires proof of but-for causation that Conversant inequitably benefited from the untimely disclosure. Judges Reyna and Bryson heard the oral argument, and a third unnamed judge will join the panel later for deliberation and final judgment. This is our argument recap.