FedCircuitBlog

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 how, “in many IP cases involving foreign defendants,” circumventing Article 5 of the Hague Convention may provide a “sense of victory [that] might be premature”;
• an article addressing “whether portfolio patent licenses can be sufficiently comparable to a single-patent license for the purposes of supporting a patent damages verdict”;
• another blog post detailing the Federal Circuit’s clarification of “the distinction between conduct warranting enhanced damages and the lesser standard of willful infringement”; and
• a report about how the Federal Circuit “revived a military security contractor’s bid for reimbursement of a penalty charged by Afghanistan’s government.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, which began this week, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, however, two new petitions have been filed with the Court: one in a veterans case and one filed by a pro se petitioner. As for previously filed petitions, one brief in opposition and two waivers of right to respond were filed. Finally, the Court denied 22 petitions following its first conference of the new term. 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:

• a blog post explaining how a company that was “denied institution on three inter partes review (IPR) petitions . . . could not simply ‘repackage’ arguments raised in its IPR petition to challenge the same patent via ex parte reexamination”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit keeps on laying down rules of the road for U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas when it comes to transferring cases to California”;
• a post discussing whether a recent Federal Circuit opinion “may be hinting that willful blindness isn’t enough, by itself, for willful [patent] infringement”; and
• another blog post noting tension between how the Federal Circuit reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and its own practice with respect to Rule 36 summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The opinion addresses issues related to willful infringement, enhanced damages, and attorney fees. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, moreover, no new petitions have been filed with the Court. As for pending petitions, though, four new reply briefs and two waivers of right to respond were filed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update three new petitions were filed in patent cases addressing eligibility, procedure in inter partes review proceedings, and the printed publication category of prior art. Additionally, the Court requested responses to two pending petitions involving challenges to the use of administrative patent judges under the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent infringement cases, along with four Rule 36 summary affirmances of appeals of judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions of the opinions and a list of the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contracts case concerning disaster-assistance funds distributions from FEMA. The court also released six nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, we are including in today’s post a recent precedential opinion in a patent case. The court had published the opinion on its website on December 23, but then removed the opinion from its website on the same day. The court re-published the opinion on December 28. Here are the introductions to the nonprecedential and precedential opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued six opinions and orders:

• a precedential opinion in a patent case affirming a holding of obviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
• a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case affirming a holding of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
• a nonprecedential opinion in a third patent case affirming a district court’s dismissal due to ineligibility, and
• three nonprecedential orders denying or dismissing petitions for writs of mandamus.

Here are the introductions to the opinions and excerpts from the orders.