FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article how the Federal Circuit recently “denied [a] bid for a full court review of a panel decision that reinstated a $177 million jury verdict” for patent infringement, “while one dissenting judge said the panel’s holding ‘creates confusion’ over enablement standards for patent method claims”;
• a blog post reporting how Crocs has asked the Supreme Court to decide “whether an agency disposition is final as to some issues, thus triggering deadlines for judicial review, while other issues decided in the same disposition remain subject to further executive or administrative review”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “issued a precedential decision affirming a finding of invalidity of certain claims [a] wireless communications patent, but holding that the district court’s reasoning, which focused on indefiniteness, was erroneous”; and
• an article highlighting how a “Wisconsin congressman unveiled a bill Wednesday aimed at modernizing the law governing misconduct investigations for federal judges and limit indefinite suspensions of jurists which judicial advocates say amount to ‘stealth impeachments.’”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one precedential order denying a petition for rehearing en banc in a patent case, four nonprecedential orders dismissing three appeals and a petition, and one nonprecedential order remanding a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The nonprecedential opinion also comes in a case appealed from the District of Delaware involving breach of contract and tortious interference claims. Today’s order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the en banc order as well as links to the dismissals and remand.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, fourteen amicus briefs were filed in the only pending en banc case, which relates to the President’s Article II removal power. Also, two new response briefs were filed in response to petitions in patent cases raising questions related to damages, the written description requirement, and the enablement requirement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to damages and the Administrative Procedure Act. One new response was filed in a case raising a question related to appellate procedure. One new amicus brief was filed in a case raising questions related to enablement and written description. Finally, one petition was denied in a case raising a question related to inventorship. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing how an en banc petition “is drawing new attention to the question of when altered DNA becomes different enough from nature to be patented”;
• a blog post suggesting a recent Federal Circuit “opinion is a useful teaching vehicle on the patent/trade-secret interface”; and
• an article explaining how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot, or ASAP, program introduces earlier visibility into the prior art landscape by providing applicants with an automated search results notice prior to substantive examination.”

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.