FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court is reviewing whether a district court erred in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses,” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and devoid of connection to the patent’s incremental improvement to the art.” This is our argument recap.

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

• an article reporting how last week in a “rare en banc” oral argument “Google LLC urged ten Federal Circuit judges to wipe out a $20 million Texas patent verdict over smart thermostats, arguing the jury shouldn’t have heard an expert witness’ description of settlements the plaintiff reached with three companies”;
• a blog post explaining how in a recent trademark opinion the Federal Circuit “clarified that terms once considered generic do not necessarily remain permanently unregistrable”;
• a piece claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again”; and
• a report explaining how recently a “patent owner has told the U.S. Supreme Court that there’s momentum behind its push for scrutiny of the Federal Circuit’s one-word orders in patent cases and its challenge to courts’ summary judgment practices in such matters.”

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit yesterday reheard a case “asking it to restrict the kinds of evidence expert witnesses can describe to juries while litigants argue over patent-infringement damages”;
• a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “highlights a significant divergence between the evidentiary standards for proving prior art status in district court litigation versus [American Invents Act] trials”;
• a piece claiming “a considerable difference of opinion between the [Federal Circuit] and [International Trade Commission] regarding interpretation and performance of [licensing] declarations” submitted to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
• a report explaining how John Squires, “Goldman Sachs’ former longtime chief intellectual property counsel,” has been nominated “to serve as the next U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director.”

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 issued an opinion in Bufkin v. Collins, a veterans case. Additionally, an opening merits brief and three amicus briefs in support of the petitioner were submitted in Soto v. United States, another veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, and two new petitions were filed in pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; two replies in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and a case related to Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two amicus briefs were filed in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in a patent case, a trade case, and a 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:

• a blog post arguing that in a recent case “the Federal Circuit was wrong in affirming the district court’s refusal to enhance damages”;
• a piece likening the current U.S. patent system to the Titanic, asserting it is “fast approaching an iceberg with disaster imminent”;
• a report explaining how the Supreme Court recently “declined to hear a patent owner’s challenge of the court’s framework for analyzing potentially abstract ideas not eligible for patent protection”; and
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit “has refused to revisit its decision forcing Teva Pharmaceuticals to delist certain inhaler patents from the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, one summary affirmance, and one nonprecedential order. Of the precedential opinions, two come in patent cases and the other comes in a veterans case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in a veterans case, and one comes in a trade case. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance and dismissal.

Next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in an en banc patent case, EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court will consider whether a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses resulted in an artificially inflated damages award. This is our argument preview.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 13 panels to consider 62 cases. Of the 62 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 45 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases will be presented to the en banc court after the court granted en banc rehearing. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases that attracted amicus briefs.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. As for granted petitions, a reply brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. As for pending petitions, a pro se litigant filed a petition, a response was filed to a petition presenting a question related to waiver of alternative grounds for affirmance, and the court denied a petition presenting a question regarding vicarious liability for direct infringement. 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. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in two patent cases. The court also received a waiver of the right to respond to one of the petitions in those patent cases, a brief in opposition to a petition in another patent case, and three new amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in yet another patent case. Here are the details.