FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post reporting how the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a reply brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Judge Newman;
• a blog post highlighting how “a unanimous court rejected the idea that a generics pharmaceutical manufacturer . . . can be held responsible for infringements of patents held by the branded manufacturer . . . based on the decisions of doctors and pharmacies to use the generic compound for patented uses of the drug”;
• a blog post explaining how, when “[c]onfronted with four patents drawn to the same basic invention, the Federal Circuit held one group of claims ineligible and a second group eligible”; and
• a blog post discussing how “more than a dozen patent matters now sit before the [Supreme] Court.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and two come in response to petitions for review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois, and the other comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, we are waiting for the Court to issue its decision. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; one reply brief was filed in a trade case; seven amicus briefs were filed in a patent case; and the Supreme Court denied three petitions in a takings case, a veterans case, and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, we have posted our argument recap. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed; four briefs in opposition were filed; two reply briefs were filed; and the Supreme Court denied a petition. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, oral argument took place in late April. As for pending petitions, since our last update, six new petitions were filed; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed; three briefs in opposition were filed; three reply briefs were filed; two amicus briefs were filed; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in five cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of West Virginia. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a case involving patent issues appealed from the Northern District of California, one comes in a case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a case decided by the Merit System Protection Board, and, finally, one comes in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from a district court. The opinion addresses eligibility. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order granting a joint motion to remand a case back to a district court. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a taking case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office, and four nonprecedential orders. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, two transfer cases, and one dismisses a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions. All come in patent cases. Two are appeals from district courts, two are appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and one is an appeal from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions.