This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and it addresses the Board’s determination that claims are invalid for obviousness. The second opinion comes in veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and it addresses the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denial of compensation to a veteran. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to the weight given to expert witness testimony during claim construction, the evidentiary basis of an invalidity finding, and the proper standard of review of agency determinations pursuant to Securities Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947). The court also received a response to a petition for rehearing en banc concerning deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also denied a petition for rehearing en banc in a case raising questions relating to patent eligibility. Here are the details.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising issues related to patent eligibility. The court also received three new responses to petitions filed in two cases addressing (1) the Patent and Trademark Office’s ability to deny inter partes review based on pending litigation concerning related patents and (2) patent eligibility. Additionally, the court received an amicus brief in the case addressing the denial of inter partes review based on pending litigation. Lastly, the court denied two petitions for rehearing en banc in cases concerning claim construction and the replacement of a primary prior art reference after institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.
Federal Circuit Judges Signal Support for Facebook Patent Win – On BloombergLaw.com, Perry Cooper reports that judges of the Federal Circuit “appear to agree with Facebook Inc. that [certain] patents . . . are invalid as abstract.”
Fed Circ Probes Validity of Cancer Treatment Patent from $1.2 Bln Win – Blake Brittain reports for Reuters that a panel of judges for the Federal Circuit “grilled [attorneys] on the validity of a cancer treatment patent that netted them nearly $1.2 billion.”
En Banc: When Employees Leave with a Half-Baked Invention – On PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch discusses Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission and the case’s pending petition for rehearing en banc.
Federal Circuit Tears Up Road Map for Keeping Patent Cases in Texas – Scott Graham posted an article on Law.com reporting on how the Federal Circuit “ordered [Western District of Texas Judge] Albright to transfer patent actions brought by Ikorongo Technology LLC against Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics.”
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case addressing GI Bill education benefits. The court also issued a nonprecedential order in a patent infringement case granting a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the Western District of Texas to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. Finally, the court released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
- Full Fed. Circ. Won’t Review Motion Sensor Patent Fight – The full Federal Circuit chose not to disturb a panel’s decision to uphold part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that struck down several claims of a motion sensor patent.
- Good News/Bad News: Patent Owners and Petitioners Both Make Gains in CAFC Uniloc Decision – Experts analyze the effects of the Federal Circuit’s recent Uniloc 2017 v. Facebook Inc. decision that raised numerous estoppel issues.
Here’s the latest.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four precedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and one involving an appeal of a district court’s order transferring a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Also, late yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case granting a petition for a writ of mandamus and ordering a district court within 30 days to issue a ruling on a motion to transfer. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
Last week, the Federal Circuit decided In re VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Moore authored a unanimous panel opinion denying VoIP-Pal’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The panel found that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by declining to dismiss the case based on the first-to-file rule. This is our opinion summary.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of a motion to dismiss, which the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System filed on the ground of sovereign immunity in an inter partes review proceeding. The court also issued six Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here is the text of the opinion and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- Two new reply briefs were filed with the Court, the first by Comcast in Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and the second by Duke in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
- The Court denied a total of three petitions this week: (1) Robles v. Wilkie, (2) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration, and (3) B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
Here are the details.