FedCircuitBlog

Recent Federal Circuit Developments in Patent Licensing – On PharmExec.com, Johnathan Harris, Heather Brady, and Drew Hiller have written an article concerning the Federal Circuit and “recent legal developments [that] can help companies avoid infringement.”

Federal Circuit: ‘Patentees Need Not Prove Their Case at the Pleading Stage’ – In her article on LawStreetMedia.com, Christina Tobacco wrote about an opinion recently issued by the Federal Circuit where the court “considered the stringency of pleading requirements in patent infringement cases.”

SCOTUS Decides Arthrex: Much Ado about Inter Partes Reviews – Aziz Burgy posted an article on BloombergLaw.com about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arthrex.

Court Ruling May Let Veterans Access Both Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits – Patricia Kime reported on Military.com about the Federal Circuit’s decision in Rudisill v. McDonough and how it “could require the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay veterans an additional year of education benefits under both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied two petitions raising questions related to inter partes review. That’s it! Here is a summary with links to the relevant case pages for more information.

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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to sovereign immunity and inter partes review; new invitations to respond to petitions raising questions related to inter partes review as well as the use of Rule 36 judgments in cases appealed from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; and the denial of a petition raising questions related to eligible subject matter. Here are the details.

• Fed. Circ. Again Says No State Sovereign Immunity In IPRs – In Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Baylor College of Medicine, the Federal Circuit held that plaintiffs can request inter partes reviews of state universities’ patents and sovereign immunity does not apply.
• Federal Circuit Tries to Wrap Its Arms Around Functional Biotech Patent Claims – The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments last Wednesday and focused on the application of the enablement requirement to Amgen’s patent covering therapeutic antibodies.
• Del. Chief Urges Creativity When Litigating Patent Eligibility – Chief Judge Leonard Stark addressed the resolution of patent eligibility issues within litigation during a panel discussion on Friday.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of a motion to dismiss, which the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System filed on the ground of sovereign immunity in an inter partes review proceeding. The court also issued six Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here is the text of the opinion and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. An amended petition was filed in a veterans case recently argued before the en banc court. As for pending en banc petitions in patent cases, highlights include new responses to petitions raising questions related to claim preclusion and sanctions; a new amicus brief filed in a case raising a question related to obviousness; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to remedies, issue and claim preclusion, jurisdiction in inter partes review, and alleged due process and takings violations in inter partes review. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. This week the en banc court will hear arguments in a veterans case. Late last week a supplemental reply brief was filed in that case. As for new petitions for en banc consideration, two were filed in patent cases raising various questions related to the doctrine of equivalents, prosecution history estoppel, vitiation, reasonable royalties, and obviousness. With respect previously-filed petitions, a new response was filed asking the court to reject a petition questioning whether whether a party who is not a patentee may sue for patent infringement. In addition, the court denied four petitions in patent cases raising questions related to mandamus jurisdiction over real-party-in-interest determinations, double patenting, transfer of venue, and claim construction. Here are the details.

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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in four patent cases raising questions related to remedies, transfer of venue, novelty, non-obviousness, and real-party-in-interest rules, as well as a response to a petition raising questions related to double-patenting. Here are the details.