FedCircuitBlog

• 2G or Not 2G: Patent License Applies to Future Generation Wireless Networks – Despite Evolved Wireless’s efforts to limit a licensing agreement for a cellular network patent to 3G Networks, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to give “generation” a broad construction.
• Apple, AT&T, Verizon Keep Patent Validity Suits in California – VoIP-Pal.com was unable to convince the Federal Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Northern District of California to transfer its cases to the Western District of Texas.
• Federal Circuit Says PTAB Wrongly Upheld Cancer Detection Patent – The Federal Circuit overruled the PTAB’s finding of no invalidity of Melanoscan’s patent in Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This week and next Monday the Federal Circuit will hold 17 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 47 cases. Notable cases include Evolved Wireless LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., In Re FCA US LLC, X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., and VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.

A constitutional question will be argued next week in a patent case entitled Evolved Wireless LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc. This case presents, however, a total of three issues:  (1) “Whether the Board erred in concluding the patent claims at issue are unpatentable, by failing to properly apply its own adopted claim construction”; (2) “Whether the Board erred by refusing to consider the declaration of Evolved’s expert on the sole ground that it did not include a statement referring to penalty of perjury”; and (3) “Whether the proceedings violated Evolved’s Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights.”