FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, in the only pending en banc patent case, which presents a question concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses, the opening en banc brief was filed, the Federal Circuit issued an order indicating parts of the opening brief went beyond the scope of en banc rehearing, and five new amicus briefs were filed. Additionally, a new petition was filed raising questions related to reliance on expert testimony in applying the doctrine of equivalents. Finally, the court denied two petitions raising questions regarding the written description requirement, obvious-type double patenting, and attorney fees. Here are the details.

Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released a precedential order in one of the court’s pending en banc cases instructing a party not to respond to the other party’s argument because it exceeds the scope of the court’s en banc rehearing. The court also released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released three nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and two in pro se cases, and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and precedential order and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit granted en banc rehearing to address a question concerning standing at the Court of Federal Claims to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement of a government contract. Additionally, an amicus brief has been filed in a pending en banc patent case raising a question concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. There are no updates regarding pending petitions. 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 discussing last week’s Senate markup hearing where lawmakers announced that they plan to “delay consideration of both the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (PREVAIL Act)”;
• an article reporting how U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal announced that “she will leave the office in mid-December ahead of the incoming administration of Republican President-Elect Donald Trump”;
• a blog post highlighting an upcoming en banc review by the Federal Circuit that will “address fundamental questions about the reliability standards for expert damages testimony in patent cases”; and
• an article examining the law surrounding patent marking after a recent Federal Circuit decision “seemingly revived a private actor’s right to bring a cause of action for false marking via the unfair competition and false advertising provisions of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.”

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

• an article discussing Judge Newman’s suspension and a “report by Dr. Aaron G. Filler released Tuesday by Newman’s lawyers with the New Civil Liberties Alliance”;
• an article addressing the current state of software patent eligibility “since the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l“; and
• a blog post highlighting the Federal Circuit’s recent order granting a petition for en banc rehearing “focusing on the admissibility of expert testimony regarding patent damages.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential order and one nonprecedential opinion. Notably, the precedential order grants a petition for rehearing en banc in a patent case. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision by the Middle District of Georgia to grant a motion to dismiss in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the order and opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit granted a petition for en banc rehearing filed by Google in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, a patent case appealed after a jury trial in the Western District of Texas. Google asked the court to consider whether the district court erred in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and devoid of connection to the patent’s incremental improvement to the art.” Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new responses to three petitions raising questions relating to the authority of the International Trade Commission, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and the use of comparable licenses to calculate damages awards. The court also received two new amicus briefs supporting a petition relating to attorney fees and invited a response to the same petition. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising issues related to design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and personal jurisdiction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions concerning a court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses and claim construction matters. The court also denied two petitions raising questions related to claim construction and summary judgment. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and three Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of International Trade, while the nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the order and Rule 36 judgments.