This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in this case Judge Newman dissented without opinion. Finally, the court released an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.
Opinions & Orders – May 18, 2022
This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts, affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. Here is the introduction to the opinion.
Today’s Opinions – September 26, 2019
Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a design patent case, one precedential opinion in a tax credit dispute with the United States government, two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases, and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Today’s Opinions – September 25, 2019
Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Argument Recap – Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. EMC Corp.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments during its September sitting in Washington DC. Here is a short recap of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. EMC Corp., one of the argued cases we’re following.
Court Week – What You Need to Know
This week the Federal Circuit will hold 11 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 41 cases. Notable cases include Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. EMC Corp., and Keith Manufacturing Co. v. Butterfield.
Argument Preview – Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. EMC Corp.
Another case being argued next week involves Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“IV”) and EMC Corp. (“EMC”). This case present the issue of whether, during an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may premise its obviousness finding on expert testimony that represents gap-filling.