FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a post-grant review, which held certain claims unpatentable as obvious or lacking written description. The other precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims and addresses an assertion by the government of a right to practice a patent and have a patent practiced on its behalf under a provision of a Bayh-Dole Act. Two of the nonprecedential opinions address jurisdiction, one affirms the rejection of proposed patent claims for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, and one affirms the dismissal of a complaint due to the claims being timebarred. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

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

• an article about “a bid by Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Corp and others to revive their challenge to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that made it harder to contest the validity of patents issued by the agency”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s skepticism about “allegations that [Facebook’s] news feed infringed on Usability Sciences’ 2014 patent”; and
• a blog post about the Federal Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Amazon.com, Inc.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, six amicus briefs were filed in George v. McDonough, a case raising a question related to clear and unmistakable error in the context of review of denials of veterans’ claims for benefits. As for still-pending petitions, one new petition was filed by a pro se petitioner; two amicus briefs were filed in a case related to patent eligibility, including a brief filed by a former Federal Circuit judge; and two reply briefs were filed: one in a veterans case and one in a trade case. Finally, four waivers of right to respond were filed and the Court denied a petition in a case concerning patent eligibility. 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. As for still-pending petitions, three new petitions were filed: one in a patent case raising questions related to eligible subject matter and two filed by pro se petitioners. Waivers of right to respond were filed in two cases: the patent case already mentioned raising questions related to eligible subject matter and another patent case also concerning eligibility. Finally, a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case that raises a question regarding the appealability of a discretionary denial of inter partes review. Here are the details.

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.