FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions, one precedential opinion in a takings case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases addressing, respectively, claim construction and non-obviousness. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals, one for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and links to the other dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article explaining how “St Jude Medical will have to defend claims that its catheters infringe[d] a company’s revived patent”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “affirm[ed] — on a procedural technicality — a precedential decision of a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that granted a motion to amend claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding”; and
• yet another article assessing how “Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.‘s best hope for escaping a $42 million patent infringement verdict won by Seagen Inc. may lie in its separate administrative challenge to Seagen’s patent.”

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 “[c]ourts continue to struggle with their use of evidence for claim construction” in patent cases;
• an article detailing how the “Senate’s April 5 confirmation of Winston & Strawn partner Kathi Vidal means the agency can finally make movement on pressing policy issues that have been in limbo while the leadership post remained vacant for more than a year”; and
• another article analyzing how the the Federal Circuit recently “criticized, but left intact, limits on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can devise reasons to reject requests to amend patents.”

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 the Federal Circuit recently gave “the Patent Trial and Appeal Board more freedom to identify its own unpatentability grounds that could block requests to amend a patent”;
• an article explaining how the Federal Circuit recently reversed and remanded “a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that . . . claims were invalid as indefinite”;
• another article detailing how the “Federal Circuit is going to take a look at U.S. District Judge Alan Albright’s first decision invalidating a patent on eligibility grounds”; and
• yet another article assessing how “[t]he Arthrex appointments clause case is back before the [Federal Circuit] . . . calling into question not only Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions, but also hundreds of thousands of patents issued in the last 14 months.”

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 “the Federal Circuit has made a rare criticism of a precedential opinion panel (POP) decision” issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
• another article providing insight into how “some sizable jury awards from last year are now providing the Federal Circuit an opportunity to clarify important points of damages law”; and
• a third article detailing how the Federal Circuit recently overruled a lower court decision that parts of three patents were invalid for indefiniteness.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. The opinion reversed a finding of invalidity. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in the fourth case, Judge Prost wrote a concurring opinion to explain that had a patentability challenge been preserved it likely would have succeeded. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders concerning, respectively, a dismissal for failure to prosecute and two voluntary dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.