FedCircuitBlog

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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in five cases raising questions related to claim construction, prevailing party status, assignor estoppel, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. In addition, a new amicus brief was filed in two cases raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions, one new case, three recent oral arguments, and two upcoming oral arguments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in five cases raising questions related to eligibility, claim construction, novelty, and non-obviousness; an amicus brief in a case raising a question related to eligibility; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to eligibility, the Appointments Clause, and non-obviousness. Here are the details.

• USPTO Says AI Can’t be A Named Inventor – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said that U.S. law bars artificial intelligence from being listed as an inventor.
• Federal Circuit Proposes Guideline Tweaks – The Federal Circuit proposed changes to its Rules of Practice.
• The Federal Circuit Explains when Winning Isn’t Prevailing – Daniel Shulman explains the results in two recent Federal Circuit decisions concerning “prevailing parties.”

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the erratum.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in six cases raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and implied licenses, one request by the Federal Circuit for a response to a petition raising questions related to collateral estoppel and inter partes review, and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to transfer, waiver, and design patent infringement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in a Vaccine Act case, one precedential opinion in a governments contract case, and one precedential opinion in a Takings Clause case. The court also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a tax case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and three nonprecedential orders. Finally, the court issued seven Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text of the orders, and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include five new petitions related to obviousness, Arthrex, alleged appellate fact-finding, and prevailing party determinations; one response to a petition raising arguments related to Arthrex; three amicus briefs in support of a petition concerning design patent infringement; and an order denying a petition related to definiteness with a dissent by four judges. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include one new petition related to obviousness, one response to a petition related to design patents, two requests for responses to petitions related to Arthrex and transfer, two amicus briefs in support of petitions related to the written description and enablement requirements, and the denial of one petition related to Arthrex and obviousness. Here are the details.