FedCircuitBlog

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 related to claim construction, persons who may petition for post-issuance review proceedings, and jurisdiction; three new responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of petitions in six cases raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, non-obviousness, and eligibility. Here are the details

• No Importing Limitations from Specification in § 101 Analysis -Thomas DaMario recaps the result in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.
• Google Asks Full Fed. Circ. Not To Rehear Venue Ruling – Google urged the Federal Circuit not to rehear In re Google LLC en banc.
• Federal Circuit Revives Cardiac Monitoring Patent – The Federal Circuit held that the claims at issue were not patent ineligible under § 101 in Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in six cases raising questions relating to design patent claim construction, damages, claim construction, eligibility, inequitable conduct, non-obviousness, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; three requests for responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of six petitions raising issues including the Appointments Clause, claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and damages. 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 seven cases raising questions related to the Administrative Procedure Act, obviousness, patent eligibility, and the Appointments Clause, and the denial of four petitions raising questions related to collateral estoppel and inter partes review, the Appointments Clause, and obviousness. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two responses to a petition raising questions related to prosecution history estoppel; one amicus brief in a case raising questions related to venue; and the denial of three petitions related to attorney’s fees, transfer, and Arthrex-related arguments. 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 two articles discussing the Federal Circuit’s denial of en banc rehearing in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., a report on upcoming oral arguments set to be heard before the Federal Circuit over plutonium fines, and a preview of the oral argument to be heard before the Supreme Court in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in thirteen cases raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, venue, and claim construction and the denial of six petitions raising questions related to non-obviousness, anticipation, inherency, procedure, the statutory experimental use exception, and the Appointments Clause. 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 pending cases, there was activity in only one case, the copyright case of Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. With respect to petitions cases, new petitions were filed in three patent cases, a response to a petition was filed in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and two parties waived their rights to respond to petitions. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include four new petitions, three of which related to Arthrex and another related to obviousness, two responses to petitions raising questions related to the statutory experimental use exception and obviousness, and the denial of three petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in Merit Systems Protection Board cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and two Rule 36 judgments. Continue reading for introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.