FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court is reviewing whether a 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.” This is our argument recap.

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

• an article reporting how last week in a “rare en banc” oral argument “Google LLC urged ten Federal Circuit judges to wipe out a $20 million Texas patent verdict over smart thermostats, arguing the jury shouldn’t have heard an expert witness’ description of settlements the plaintiff reached with three companies”;
• a blog post explaining how in a recent trademark opinion the Federal Circuit “clarified that terms once considered generic do not necessarily remain permanently unregistrable”;
• a piece claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again”; and
• a report explaining how recently a “patent owner has told the U.S. Supreme Court that there’s momentum behind its push for scrutiny of the Federal Circuit’s one-word orders in patent cases and its challenge to courts’ summary judgment practices in such matters.”

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit yesterday reheard a case “asking it to restrict the kinds of evidence expert witnesses can describe to juries while litigants argue over patent-infringement damages”;
• a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “highlights a significant divergence between the evidentiary standards for proving prior art status in district court litigation versus [American Invents Act] trials”;
• a piece claiming “a considerable difference of opinion between the [Federal Circuit] and [International Trade Commission] regarding interpretation and performance of [licensing] declarations” submitted to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
• a report explaining how John Squires, “Goldman Sachs’ former longtime chief intellectual property counsel,” has been nominated “to serve as the next U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director.”

Next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in an en banc patent case, EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court will consider whether a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses resulted in an artificially inflated damages award. This is our argument preview.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 13 panels to consider 62 cases. Of the 62 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 45 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases will be presented to the en banc court after the court granted en banc rehearing. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases that attracted amicus briefs.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. As for granted petitions, a reply brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. As for pending petitions, a pro se litigant filed a petition, a response was filed to a petition presenting a question related to waiver of alternative grounds for affirmance, and the court denied a petition presenting a question regarding vicarious liability for direct infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. An opening brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. Three new amicus briefs have also been filed in the other pending en banc case regarding a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. Additionally, a new petition was filed in a Hatch-Waxman case raising a question regarding listing of patents in the Orange Book. Finally, the court denied an en banc petition raising a question concerning the lifting of an administrative injunction. Here are the highlights.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. A response brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. Petitioners also filed two new petitions, one seeking an emergency injunction and one presenting a question regarding vicarious liability for direct infringement. Here are the highlights.

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.