FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. In the first precedential opinion, the court affirmed a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. In the second precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In two of the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit denied petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to transfer cases from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. One of the other nonprecedential orders, however, granted in part a petition for a writ of mandamus and, in particular, directed the Western District of Texas to decide a transfer motion. The last nonprecedential order dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the dismissal.

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

• a Federal Circuit opinion reversing a $1.2 billion dollar jury verdict;
• the use of court-appointed technical advisors by federal district courts in patent cases;
• how the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s order prohibiting certain expert testimony related to damages in a patent case; and
• a Federal Circuit opinion in a patent case addressing the construction of a claim preamble.

• PTAB Axes 2 Uniloc Patents, Trims Another In Tech Giant Row – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board handed down three decisions invalidating Uniloc patents under the theory that the patent claims were obvious.
• U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Merck appeal in hepatitis C patent fight with Gilead – The Supreme Court declined to revive a $2.54 billion jury verdict for Merck after the Federal Circuit found that Merck’s patent claims concerning a family of compounds used to treat hepatitis C were overly broad.
• Fed. Circ. Won’t Undo PTAB Rulings On Motorola Patents – On Tuesday, in a trio of unanimous opinions, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions that upheld Motorola patents.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• Four new waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• The Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in three cases.

Here are the details.

• Federal Circuit Statistics – 2020 Edition – Jason Rantanen analyzes the data and trends in the cases heard and decided by the Federal Circuit this year.
• Gilead “Rewriting” History To Save $2.5B IP Win, Justices Told – Idenix Pharmaceuticals implored the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reinstate the country’s largest patent verdict after the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision.
• What to Watch in 2021: IP Stakeholders Offer Predictions and Thoughts for the New Year – Several contributors shared their opinions on the state of intellectual property, the Federal Circuit, and the USPTO going forward into the new year.

Here’s the latest.

• Supreme Court Denies Patent Petitions on Arthrex, Eligibility – The U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari in two cases coming out of the Federal Circuit: IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and WhitServe LLC v. Donuts Inc.
• Amgen, GSK Urge Justices To Allow Patents On Genus Claims – A trio of amicus briefs filed on Monday urge the Supreme Court to grant Merck’s petition for certiorari and ensure that companies are able to patent genus claims.
• COVID-19 Vaccine Leader Moderna “Not Aware of Any Significant Intellectual Property Impediments” in Development of its Vaccine Despite Mixed Results at PTAB – As global leaders in COVID-19 vaccine development receive promising results from their clinical trials, the focus turns to whether legal intellectual property obstacles may impede vaccine distribution.  

Here’s the latest.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC, (2) Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC v. Iancu, and (3) Kinghorn v. United States.
• Two new responses to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by the Alfred E. Mann Foundation in Cochlear Corp. v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, and the second by the government in ThermoLife International LLC v. Iancu.
• One new reply to the petition in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC was filed with the Court by Rovi.
• Three amicus briefs were filed in Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., all in support of Idenix.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in three cases: (1) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp., (2) Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc., and (3) Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Bedgear, LLC and Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by B.E. Technology in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One amicus brief was filed with the Court in Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. by Lambeth Magnetic Structures.
• Finally, three waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in (1) Robles v. Wilkie, (2) Golden v. United States, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include three new petitions raising questions related to prosecution history estoppel and vitiation and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, definiteness, written description, and enablement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in four cases raising questions relating to patent eligibility, the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and non-obviousness; one new response to a pending petition raising questions related to enablement, written description, and the 7th Amendment; and the denial of ten petitions raising issues including the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and implied licenses. Here are the details.