FedCircuitBlog

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

• The Supreme Court received one new cross-petition for writ of certiorari in Hologic, Inc. v. Minvera Surgical, Inc.
• One new response to the petition in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. was filed with the Court by Hologic.
• Two new amicus briefs were filed in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. in support of Minerva, the first by Engine Advocacy and the second by a group of Intellectual Property Professors.
• One waiver of right to respond to the petition in Rutila v. Department of Transportation was filed with the Court by the Department of Transportation.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in two cases: (1) Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp. and (2) Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.

Here are the details.

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

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Bedgear, LLC and Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by B.E. Technology in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One amicus brief was filed with the Court in Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. by Lambeth Magnetic Structures.
• Finally, three waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in (1) Robles v. Wilkie, (2) Golden v. United States, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.

Here are the details.

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

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week in (1) Cochlear Corporation v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, (2) Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., and (3) Acer America Corporation v. Intellisoft, Ltd.
• Two briefs in response to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Rovi in Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and the second by Facebook in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by Phazzer in Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
• Lastly, two waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in Drevaleva v. United States and Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Here are the details.

• Sweat the Small Stuff: Lessons of Federal Circuit Damages Cases – Marking, interest accrual, and awards calculation have been important issues in six Federal Circuit decisions on patent damages, but the Federal Circuit has been reluctant to overturn jury awards in other damages cases.
• Standard Essentiality is a Question for the Fact Finder – Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communications Technology Holdings that the trier of fact should determine whether patent claims are essential to all implementations of an industry standard.
• The Little Tucker Act is Alive and Well – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States reaffirms to plaintiffs with small non-tort claims against the United States that they can file either in the Court of Federal Claims or in a local district court.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in six cases raising questions relating to design patent claim construction, damages, claim construction, eligibility, inequitable conduct, non-obviousness, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; three requests for responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of six petitions raising issues including the Appointments Clause, claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and damages. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in five cases raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, marking and notice, and definiteness; one response to a petition raising questions related to collateral estoppel and inter partes review; one request by the Federal Circuit for a response to a petition raising questions related to collateral estoppel and the doctrine of equivalents; and the denial of petitions in three cases (including, notably, Arthrex). 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 commentary on the importance of patent marking, an article describing a Federal Circuit decision that may allow federal contractors to purchase more foreign-made parts, and commentary on the Supreme Court’s pending copyright case, Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.