FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed. One comes in a patent case raising a question under the Administrative Procedure Act relating to inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other petition comes in a pro se case. The Court also received a new brief in opposition in a case concerning appellate procedure, an amicus brief in a patent case, and waivers of the right to respond in two other patent cases. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in three patent cases and one pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in Bufkin v. McDonough. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed in two patent cases and a veterans case, two new briefs in opposition were filed in patent cases, and one new amicus brief was filed in a veterans case. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in a patent case and a pro se case. 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 at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition raising a question about the correct interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) and denials of petitions in two cases raising questions related to obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion concerns a “seven-day trip of two transcatheter heart valve systems in and out of San Francisco”—and whether this act of “importation” was exempt from patent infringement under the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Judge Lourie dissented from the majority’s interpretation of the relevant statutory language and precedent to exempt infringement in this situation. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the denial of fees. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. One of the opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Another one of the opinions addresses an appeal from a summary judgment holding asserted patent claims ineligible for patenting. The remaining two opinions address appeals from judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable. The orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and attends to arguments related to claim construction and the determination of analogous art for purposes of a nonobviousness analysis. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. One order summarily affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims; one order denied a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate an order transferring a patent case from the Northern District of Illinois to the Eastern District of Texas; and two orders dismissed appeals. Here is selected text from the summary affirmance and denial of the petition and links to the dismissals.

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

• an article about “a bid by Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Corp and others to revive their challenge to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that made it harder to contest the validity of patents issued by the agency”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s skepticism about “allegations that [Facebook’s] news feed infringed on Usability Sciences’ 2014 patent”; and
• a blog post about the Federal Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Amazon.com, Inc.