FedCircuitBlog

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.

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.”