FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights commentary on the importance of patent marking, an article describing a Federal Circuit decision that may allow federal contractors to purchase more foreign-made parts, and commentary on the Supreme Court’s pending copyright case, Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Highlights include thirty new amicus briefs in Google Inc. v. Oracle America, Inc., the denial of the application for a stay of the the Federal Circuit’s mandate in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., three new petitions in a trade case and two patent cases, and a new amicus brief in support of a petition related to apportionment of patent damages. 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 Oracle’s brief to the Supreme Court in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., an argument that eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC should be overruled, and the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in In re Google LLC that Google’s servers do not establish venue.

As a reminder, once a month we provide an update on activity in patent 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. (There we also highlight non-patent cases that attract amicus brief, but only once those cases have been scheduled for oral argument.) Today, with respect to patent cases, we highlight one new opinion, a recent oral argument, and three upcoming oral arguments.

As we reported earlier today, this morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in In re Google LLC ordering that the case be dismissed or transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for lack of venue. We have been tracking the case given the filing of an amicus brief in support of Google. As previously noted in our oral argument recap, Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the case for lack of venue. The district court had found venue appropriate based on the presence of Google’s servers in the district. A panel of the Federal Circuit disagreed with that basis for venue, and Judge Wallach filed a concurring opinion. Here is a summary of today’s order and some reflections on both the panel’s decision and Judge Wallach’s concurrence.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in In re Google LLC granting a writ of mandamus ordering the case be dismissed or transferred. The Federal Circuit also issued three precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases. Here is the text of the order and the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here is the judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include one new petition related to obviousness, one amicus brief in support of a petition related to transfer, one notice of supplemental authority related to expert testimony and a response to the notice, and the denial of two petitions. 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 discussion of patent eligibility cases pending at the Federal Circuit, a comment on the Federal Circuit’s recent grant of interlocutory review of a district court’s exclusion of all of a patent owner’s expert testimony related to damages, and a note about the Federal Circuit’s recent use of general knowledge in an analysis of patent law’s non-obviousness requirement.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order, all in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the order.