FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal in a patent case decided by a district court. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and yesterday’s dismissal.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights an article discussing a Federal Circuit decision upholding three patents concerning antibody treatment for migraines, another article highlighting a summary affirmance of a district court’s invalidation of a patent for ineligibility, an article about a Federal Circuit determination that the Patent Office cannot recoup expert witness fees in lawsuits filed in district court by unsuccessful patent applicants, and commentary on a recent ruling about the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act in the context of inter partes review proceedings.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two nonprecedential opinions in another patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and an employment case, a Rule 36 judgment, and one erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the relevant orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and a precedential opinion in a veterans case. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case and a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

In this article, we highlight two scholarly articles related to the Federal Circuit.

• Eli Lilly v. Teva: Generic Companies Infringe under Akamai IV in Case of Divided Infringement by Christopher M. Holman
• Design Patent Law’s Identity Crisis by Peter S. Menell and Ella Corren

Here are the details.

• New Suits Against Amazon Barred Under Claim Preclusion – Relying on a 1907 decision, the Federal Circuit bars suits against Amazon’s customers.
• Supreme Court Will Not Hear Eli Lilly Patent Appeal – This week, the Supreme Court denied two petitions both relating to a chemotherapy treatment for lung cancer.
• Federal Circuit Upholds Dumping Duties – Chinese solar cell companies were kept accountable for dumping thanks to a recent Federal Circuit ruling.

Here’s the latest.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received six new petitions this week in (1) BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., (2) Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., (3) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank., (4) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al., (5) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and (6) Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
• In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast submitted its reply to the ITC’s brief in opposition.
• Finally, the State of Indiana submitted identical amicus briefs in favor of the petitioners in both Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes the recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received responses for the following five petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission, and (5) Ford Motor Co. v. United States.
• The Supreme Court received replies in the four following petitions: (1) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., (3) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., and (4) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
• In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., Baxter International filed an amicus brief in favor of the respondent.

Here are the details.

• Justices Told To Skip Challenge Over Doctrine Of Equivalents – Eli Lilly and Co. is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a challenge of a Federal Circuit ruling over when patent infringement can be found under the doctrine of equivalents.
• The Federal Circuit Clarifies The Notice Requirements Of The Administrative Procedure Act – How do the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act operate in the context of claim amendments during inter partes reviews?
• Uniloc’s Bluetooth Patent Case Against LG Revived – LG Electronics must face revived claims that it infringed a Bluetooth connectivity patent.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The petition in Superior Communications, Inc. v. Voltstar Technologies, Inc. was granted. The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for further consideration in light of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 590 U. S. _ (2020).
• One new Tucker Act petition was filed in Callan Campbell v. United States.
• A new response was filed in both (1) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Company and (2) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company.
• New amicus briefs were filed in (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States and (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission.

Here are the details.