FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two denials of petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases. 

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include three new petitions in patent cases addressing claim construction, obviousness, and exceptional case status. 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:

• an article about the Federal Circuit finding that “Apple can’t reach back through history and apply the Beatles’ Apple Corps mark . . . to protect a broad category of live events and recordings”; and
• another article about how “[t]he Federal Circuit has clarified how courts should determine when accused patent infringers are barred from making invalidity arguments they didn’t include in an earlier [inter partes review] challenge.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post discussing whether, in the context of the Patent Act, “obviousness is a straightforward inquiry”;
• an article assessing the Federal Circuit and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s approaches to patent subject matter eligibility;
• another blog post analyzing the primary takeaways from a recent Federal Circuit patent case addressing damages; and
• another article explaining how “AT&T Corp. survived a patent infringement claim . . . after the Federal Circuit found there wasn’t sufficient evidence that the telephone service provider’s remote terminals were in locations covered by the patents.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a death benefits case appealed from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The second comes in two consolidated patent cases appealed from the District of Delaware. The court also released four nonprecedential orders. Two of the orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus against, respectively, the Court of Federal Claims and Eastern District of Texas. The third order grants a voluntary dismissal, and the fourth transfers a case to the Second Circuit. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

• 2G or Not 2G: Patent License Applies to Future Generation Wireless Networks – Despite Evolved Wireless’s efforts to limit a licensing agreement for a cellular network patent to 3G Networks, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to give “generation” a broad construction.
• Apple, AT&T, Verizon Keep Patent Validity Suits in California – VoIP-Pal.com was unable to convince the Federal Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Northern District of California to transfer its cases to the Western District of Texas.
• Federal Circuit Says PTAB Wrongly Upheld Cancer Detection Patent – The Federal Circuit overruled the PTAB’s finding of no invalidity of Melanoscan’s patent in Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC.

Here’s the latest.

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.