FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case along with three nonprecedential opinions. The precedential patent opinion addresses divided infringement and principles of vicarious liability. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a takings case, while the other two come in pro se cases. The court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. Both opinions address jurisdictional issues. One order transfers a case to an Illinois district court, one order dismisses a case, and two are Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order transferring a case, and links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissal.

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.

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 claim construction; a new response to a petition raising questions related to an alleged conflict of interest and summary affirmances; and a new amicus brief in support of a petition raising a question related to the written description requirement. Finally the court denied a petition for rehearing en banc raising questions related to inducement of infringement and an evidentiary rule. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Recently the Federal Circuit granted en banc review in one veterans case, and last week the en banc court heard oral argument in another veterans case. As for petitions for en banc review in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction. The court also received three new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and the written description requirement. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. 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 the written description requirement and the standard of review for the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction. The court also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to the written description requirement. 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 assessing whether Section 1052(c) of the Lanham Act is “a “First Amendment-free zone”;
• an article analyzing Cellspin Soft’s challenge of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of “Director review following a pair of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• another article discussing the Federal Circuit’s affirmation of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling “that certain claims were invalid as anticipated by an earlier priority application from the same family”; and
• yet another article explaining how the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board determined that “[a] trademark registration applicant can’t register a mark for a business that is in the ‘nascent stage.’”

• New Suits Against Amazon Barred Under Claim Preclusion – Relying on a 1907 decision, the Federal Circuit bars suits against Amazon’s customers.
• Supreme Court Will Not Hear Eli Lilly Patent Appeal – This week, the Supreme Court denied two petitions both relating to a chemotherapy treatment for lung cancer.
• Federal Circuit Upholds Dumping Duties – Chinese solar cell companies were kept accountable for dumping thanks to a recent Federal Circuit ruling.

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

• The Supreme Court received responses for the following five petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission, and (5) Ford Motor Co. v. United States.
• The Supreme Court received replies in the four following petitions: (1) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., (3) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., and (4) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
• In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., Baxter International filed an amicus brief in favor of the respondent.

Here are the details.