FedCircuitBlog

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This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential order and one nonprecedential opinion.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 The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision by the Middle District of Georgia to grant a motion to dismiss in a patent case.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.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a judgment of the Western District of Texas in a patent case. All four orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—challenging both the Board’s claim construction and asserting that the Board’s decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The two nonprecedential opinions address appeals from decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, with one opinion sparking a dissent from Judge Reyna. The order grants a voluntary withdrawal of a petition for review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders on its website. One transfers a case to the Western District of Texas, while the other four dismiss appeals. Here are links to the orders.