FedCircuitBlog

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 petition for certiorari regarding a Federal Circuit decision addressing patent infringement and “skinny labels” on generic medications;
• another article about “[t]he Federal Circuit reviv[ing] patent licensing company Uniloc’s cases against Google”; and
• a third article about a Federal Circuit oral argument concerning “a Google patent application for parental control content filters.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in two patent cases related to so-called skinny labelling and eligibility, respectively; a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement; a reply brief was submitted in a veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; and, finally, the Court denied more than 20 petitions. 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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case raising a question related to inter partes review estoppel; a brief in opposition was submitted in another patent case raising a question related to patent eligibility; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; and two reply briefs were submitted in patent cases addressing so-called “skinny labelling” and the written description requirement. 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, Arellano filed his reply brief in Arellano v. McDonough. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a Rule 36 case, three amicus briefs were submitted in a patent case, and a brief in opposition was submitted in the same patent case. 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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a takings case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case and a veterans case; and three amicus briefs were filed in a takings case and a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to granted cases, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed its merits brief in Arellano v. McDonough. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a patent case, one in a case addressing the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, and two in pro se cases; seven amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitions in two patent cases addressing the written description requirement; and the Court dismissed a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

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

• an article discussing the top patent cases to watch in the second half of 2022;
• another article highlighting how a petition for a writ of certiorari claimed that a Federal Circuit decision “would upend the legal rules governing the modern prescription-drug marketplace”; and
• a third article urging that the question of whether artificial intelligence can be an inventor under patent law “is one for Congress, not the courts, to address.”

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

• a blog post discussing how the “Federal Circuit sidestep[ed] [the] determination of generics’ skinny label as protection against induced [patent] infringement”;
• an article detailing how the “Federal Circuit h[eld] that a price ‘quotation’ can trigger [patent law’s] on-sale bar”; and
• another article analyzing how “Disney convince[d] [the] Fed. Circ. to reject [the] ‘Teen Tinker Bell’ trademark.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Recently the Federal Circuit granted en banc review in one veterans case, and last week the en banc court heard oral argument in another veterans case. As for petitions for en banc review in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction. The court also received three new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and the written description requirement. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Here are the details.

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

• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Leonard Stark to the Federal Circuit, the nation’s top patent court”;
• another article similarly discussing how “Judge Leonard Philip Stark was confirmed by the U.S. Senate yesterday to be the next judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, replacing Judge Kathleen O’Malley”;
• an article discussing how “Teva struck out . . . in its effort to convince a U.S. appeals court to rehear its arguments for undoing a $235 million verdict for GlaxoSmithKline”; and
• yet another article explaining how recently the “Federal Circuit [effectively] clamp[ed] down on post IPR invalidity arguments.”