FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article about the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition “to review a February ruling . . . that held claims of ChromaDex, Inc.’s patent on an isolated form of vitamin B3 are directed to unpatentable subject matter under Section 101”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “vacated a $4.6 million award for lost profits” in a patent case; and
• an article highlighting a recent “fight over words” at the Federal Circuit in another patent case.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a reply brief was filed in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to pending petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a veterans case and in a pro se case, and a waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case addressing both joinder in inter partes review proceedings and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Additionally, a brief in opposition was filed in a Tucker Act case and two reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in two different cases, one in a trade case presenting questions related to separation of powers and steel tariffs and one in a patent case addressing joint inventorship. Finally, the Court denied petitions in one patent case and two pro se cases. 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, waivers of right to respond were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, a brief in opposition was filed in a trade case presenting questions related to separation of powers and steel tariffs, and three amicus briefs were filed in a veterans 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, a merits brief and an amicus brief were filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases addressing eligibility and prosecution laches respectively and in a takings case. Additionally, waivers of right to respond were filed in the patent case addressing prosecution laches and in a pro se case, and a supplemental brief was filed with the Court in a patent case addressing eligibility. Finally, three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case addressing judicial review of determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. 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 highlighting how a “former Federal Circuit Judge predicts shake-up on” the Federal Circuit;
• an article discussing “the pending ‘Vidal v. Elster‘ Supreme Court case and whether a provision of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment by barring registration of a trademark that contains criticism of a government official or public figure”; and
• an article analyzing a petition to the Supreme Court arguing that “the Federal Circuit failed to use the Supreme Court’s two-step” test for patent eligibility in ChromaDex Inc. v. Elysium Health Inc.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition filed in a case raising a question about what constitutes a final judgment for purposes of appellate jurisdiction, three new responses to petitions related to eligibility and design patent’s non-obviousness requirement, and two amicus briefs also related to design patent’s non-obviousness requirement. The court also denied two petitions raising questions about eligibility and infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to prosecution laches, invited a response to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility, and received three amicus briefs supporting rehearing in two cases raising the same questions related to non-obviousness of designs under design patent law. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the court received the appellant’s supplemental brief. As for patent cases, the court received a new petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. 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:

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding “an isolated form of vitamin B3″ to be “unpatentable subject matter under Section 101”;
• an article about Optis Cellular urging the Federal Circuit “not to reverse a Texas federal jury’s nine-figure infringement judgment against Apple, Inc.”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit “reviv[ing] a long-running infringement lawsuit Bard brought against Pennsylvania-based Medical Components Inc.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit reversed the Claims Court’s finding that the property interests at issue were easements. The second comes in patent case appealed from the Western District of Wisconsin. In it, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s construction of a specific term, vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to one patent, and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to another patent. The third comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of lack of eligibility. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal.