FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received four new petitions raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings, motivation to combine prior art references, and the presumption of nexus in a non-obviousness analysis. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and a response to a motion to expedite issuance of the mandate in a case raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. The court also invited a response to the petition already mentioned that raised a question related to motivation to combine prior art references. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in a patent case denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Notably, Judge Lourie dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, and his opinion was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Newman. In the dissenting judges’ view, the panel decision confused patent law’s written description requirement. In addition to this order, the court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning attorneys’ fees. Finally, late yesterday the court issued a nonprecedential order concerning a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the order and opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Last week the court granted en banc reharing in a veteran’s case, and tomorrow the en banc court will hear oral argument in another veteran’s case. As for patent cases, the court received two new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause and the written description requirement, and the court invited a response to a petition raising questions related to conflicts of interest and due process. Finally, in another patent case the court received a new amicus brief supporting a petition raising a question related to claim construction. 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 discussing how recently the “Federal Circuit underscore[d] [the] importance of [patent law’s] written description requirement”;
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit “threw out a jury verdict ordering Apple Inc and Broadcom Inc to pay $1.1 billion to the California Institute of Technology” in a patent case;
• another another article assessing how the Federal Circuit “upheld a Michigan judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction” in a patent case; and
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “improperly relied on applicant admitted prior art” in an inter partes review proceeding.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions raising questions related to claim construction, conflict of interest, due process, inducement of infringement, and an evidentiary rule. The court invited a response to a petition raising questions related to the written description requirement. In the same case, the court received three new amicus briefs supporting rehearing. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to the written description requirement. The court also received a new response to a different petition also raising a question related to the written description requirement. In addition, the court denied a petition for hearing en banc raising a question related to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of petitions for inter partes review. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released opinions in two related patent cases, one a precedential opinion and one a nonprecedential opinion. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Northern District of West Virginia that certain claims are invalid for lack of written description. Judge O’Malley dissented. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review addressing the same patent. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Amgen Defeats Appeal Over Arthritis Drug Patents – Amgen successfully defends its multi-billion-dollar arthritis drug patents in the Federal Circuit on Wednesday.
• Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ax Of Aircraft Space-Saving IP – The Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, invalidated two aircraft patents in B/E Aerospace Inc. v. C&D Zodiac Inc.
• No rehearing for Biogen in Tecfidera patent appeal – Biogen was denied an en banc rehearing of Biogen International GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC, finalizing Banner’s win in the Federal Circuit.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include the filing of the opening brief in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in which the Federal Circuit granted a petition for initial hearing en banc to address two questions related to jurisdiction and veterans law. As for petitions in patent cases, highlights include a new petition raising questions related to restriction requirements and patent term adjustments; a new response to a petition raising questions related to obviousness; a new invitation for a response to a petition raising questions related to injunctive relief; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to claim construction, prevailing party status, and forum selection clauses. 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 three cases raising questions related to standing, obviousness, and eligibility; a new invitation for a response in a case raising questions related to obviousness; two new amicus briefs in cases raising questions related to claim construction, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; and the denial of seven petitions raising questions related to claim construction, eligibility, novelty, non-obviousness, and the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.