FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to anticipation and two responses to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. The court also denied three petitions raising questions related the standard for an award of attorneys’ fees, inter partes review estoppel, and assignor estoppel. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received responses to petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel and inter partes review estoppel. The court also denied a petition filed by a pro se party. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the government filed its en banc response brief, and the Federal Circuit scheduled the case for oral argument in December. The court also invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel and inter partes review estoppel. Finally, the court granted panel rehearing and denied rehearing en banc in response to a petition raising questions related to the process and standard for determining indefiniteness. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and inter partes review estoppel. 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 a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing estoppel in inter partes review patent proceedings;
• an article discussing another recent decision in which an “Endo International Plc subsidiary failed to convince the Federal Circuit that a generic version of its bestselling blood-pressure drug infringed its patents”;
• a third article summarizing another recent decision invoking “the rule prohibiting recapture of subject matter surrendered during prosecution” following an amendment “to overcome a § 101 patent eligibility rejection.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. The Federal Circuit reversed-in-part, affirmed-in-part, and remanded. It reversed as to a specific claim, concluding that the district court erred in not applying inter partes review estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) as to that claim. It affirmed the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s request to amend its selection of asserted claims to add claims not at issue in the inter partes review. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

• Good News for Patentees: Bipartisan NSCAI Invokes National Security in Calling for Legislation to Clarify Patent Eligibility – A recent report released by a bipartisan congressionally-established commission lends powerful support to Section 101 reform initiatives.
• Dish Rejected in Bid to Revive Data Compression Patent Challenge – The Federal Circuit refused to jump-start a patent challenge after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that the challenge was time-barred.
• Method for Determining Haplotype Phase Found Subject Matter Ineligible – Applying the Alice framework, the Federal Circuit emphasized that a mathematical or scientific algorithm, without more innovation or improvement, is patent ineligible.

Here’s the latest.

• U.S. Wrongly Linked 3 Steel Companies In Duty Probe – The U.S. Department of Commerce improperly tied steel companies together in an anti-dumping investigation, said the Federal Circuit.
• All Substantial Rights Deemed Test Informative – With the decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit endorses the “all substantial rights” test for the first time.
• Section 315(a) Calls At Institution Cannot Be Reviewed – Finally, the Federal Circuit applied the recent Supreme Court decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs to a Section 315(a) and (b) case.

Here’s the latest.

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

• The Supreme Court received six new petitions this week in (1) BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., (2) Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., (3) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank., (4) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al., (5) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and (6) Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
• In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast submitted its reply to the ITC’s brief in opposition.
• Finally, the State of Indiana submitted identical amicus briefs in favor of the petitioners in both Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order in a patent case vacating the court’s judgment and dismissing the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Here is text from the order.