On Friday the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Google, a case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In the order, the court denied the petition because, it found, Google did not meet its heavy burden. Moreover, the court indicated that Google may obtain meaningful review after a final judgment is issued in its pending case. Here is a summary of the case and the order.
Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions, three new cases that attracted amicus briefs, two recent oral arguments, and one upcoming oral argument.
- Iancu Says Congress May Be Up For Patent Eligibility Reform – In an effort to enhance clarity and guidance for innovators, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu suggests that Congressional reform of Section 101 of the Patent Act may be the key to providing a more predictable and consistent analytical framework for determining what is patentable and what is not.
- Chanel Adds Camellia Drawing to its Arsenal of Trademarks – This past July, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted trademark registration for Chanel’s five-petaled camellia drawing used in connection with the luxury brand’s products and packaging.
- Apple, Cisco, Google, Intel Sue PTO Over Its America Invents Act Policies – On Monday, Apple Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., and Intel Corp. sued PTO Director Andrei Iancu in the Northern District of California. Using a two-pronged litigation strategy, technology industry giants assert that the current USPTO policies deprive the tech industry of its access to the America Invents Act.
Here’s the latest.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case. The Federal Circuit also issued four nonprecedential opinions: one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a patent case, one in a tax case, and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Google and Oracle submitted supplemental briefs addressing the correct standard of review for the second question presented in the case.
- The following two petitions for writ of certiorari were submitted to the Supreme Court: (1) Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. and (2) Essity Hygiene and Health AB v. Cascades Canada ULC.
- Arthrex, Inc. submitted its reply to the Court in the Appointments Clause petition Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
- In The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Techtronic filed its brief in opposition to the petitioner’s argument for granting certiorari.
Here are the details.
- Patent Lawsuits on the Rise – Even with the disruption due to the coronavirus, patent lawsuits are up 9% year-over-year.
- Google and Sonos at odds over Wireless Speakers Fight – Google countersued Sonos over an alleged patent infringement in an escalating legal battle between the two companies.
- Federal Circuit finds no infringement in an Interactive Guitar Game– The court in Ubisoft Entertainment, S.A. v. Yousician Oy, affirmed the dismissal of Yousician’s claims of infringement because the claimed invention was improperly directed to an abstract idea.
Here’s the latest.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in government contracts cases, one precedential opinion in a trade case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued six nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgments.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in five cases raising questions related to claim construction, the Appointments Clause, and obviousness; an invitation for a response in one case raising questions related to inequitable conduct and obviousness; the denial of four petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, venue, damages, and claim construction; and the withdrawal of one petition raising questions related to the Administrative Procedure Act. Here are the details.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases, four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and one nonprecedential order in a patent case dismissing an appeal as moot. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.