FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided In re VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Moore authored a unanimous panel opinion denying VoIP-Pal’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The panel found that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by declining to dismiss the case based on the first-to-file rule. This is our opinion summary.

• Federal Circuit Rules PTAB Erred on Successor-in-Interest Issue in Crocs Case – The Federal Circuit granted a motion to substitute in a case involving a design patent infringement issue between Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC and Crocs, Inc. (Crocs).
• Apple Asks To Postpone March Patent Trial Due To COVID-19 – Apple requested that the Federal Circuit postpone its patent trial to later in 2021 when the trial participants will have had a chance to be vaccinated.

Here’s the latest.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases attracted 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 two dispositions, one in a veterans case addressing allegations of delay violating due process and one in a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. We also highlight two new patent cases, one addressing claim construction and the non-obviousness requirement and the other addressing the first-to-file rule and patent eligibility. We also note three upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one precedential order granting a motion to substitute a successor-in-interest in a design patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Last week the court heard oral argument in the en banc veterans case. As for petitions in patent cases, highlights include a new petition raising a question related to claim construction; new responses to petitions raising questions related to inter partes review and Rule 36 summary affirmances; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a new amicus brief in a case raising questions related to inter partes review; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and transfer of venue. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, one in a tax case, and one in a patent case. Additionally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

• Deere Loses Patent Challenge at Federal Circuit – The Federal Circuit rejected Deere & Co.’s attempt to invalidate a patent over combine crop harvester technology as a misrepresentation of the PTAB’s decision.
• Federal Circuit Unlikely To Nix Apple’s Win In Memory Patent Case – Qualcomm met resistance when arguing before the Federal Circuit that the PTAB did not construe a key term in invalidating Qualcomm’s patent.

Here’s the latest.

• Challenging Therapeutics IP After Fed. Circ. Drink Can Ruling – Issued on the last day of 2020, the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. v. Crown Packaging Technology Inc., raises important considerations for patent challengers alleging the indefiniteness of measurement claim terms that describe pharmacologic or physicochemical properties of an invention.
• Apple Transfer Win Survives Bid for Full Federal Circuit Review – The Federal Circuit denied a petition for an en banc review of an earlier decision that enabled Apple to transfer its case to the Northern District of California.
• Federal Circuit Says PTAB Failed to Provide Proper Notice to IPR Respondent of Anticipation Theory – A recent Federal Circuit decision held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in finding a claim anticipated by prior art even though the petition for inter partes review had only asserted obviousness as to the claim.  

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court will hear oral argument tomorrow in a veterans case. As for patent cases, highlights include new petitions questions related to inter partes review, enablement, and eligible subject matter; a new response to a petition raising questions related to the intersection of inducement of infringement and Hatch-Waxman; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to eligible subject matter, enablement, the intersection of venue and Hatch-Waxman, and the presumption of validity. Here are the details.

• PTAB Axes 2 Uniloc Patents, Trims Another In Tech Giant Row – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board handed down three decisions invalidating Uniloc patents under the theory that the patent claims were obvious.
• U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Merck appeal in hepatitis C patent fight with Gilead – The Supreme Court declined to revive a $2.54 billion jury verdict for Merck after the Federal Circuit found that Merck’s patent claims concerning a family of compounds used to treat hepatitis C were overly broad.
• Fed. Circ. Won’t Undo PTAB Rulings On Motorola Patents – On Tuesday, in a trio of unanimous opinions, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions that upheld Motorola patents.