FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision “clarifying the requirements for the disclosure of technology that is ready for patenting at a public event to qualify as being ‘in public use’”;
• an article about a Federal Circuit ruling finding “federal workers are generally not entitled to extra pay for being exposed to COVID-19 through their jobs”; and
• another article about the ramifications of “US Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal’s reinstatement of two companies she’d removed from high-profile [inter partes review] patent challenges.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a ruling of unpatentability as a result of the public use bar in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first affirms a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other two each dismiss a veterans case that was appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to anticipation and two responses to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. The court also denied three petitions raising questions related the standard for an award of attorneys’ fees, inter partes review estoppel, and assignor estoppel. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received responses to petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel and inter partes review estoppel. The court also denied a petition filed by a pro se party. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the government filed its en banc response brief, and the Federal Circuit scheduled the case for oral argument in December. The court also invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel and inter partes review estoppel. Finally, the court granted panel rehearing and denied rehearing en banc in response to a petition raising questions related to the process and standard for determining indefiniteness. 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:

• an article about the disagreement between the Fifth Circuit and Federal Circuit over jurisdiction regarding “cases involving the intersection of intellectual property and antitrust law”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s application of assignor estoppel in patent cases after the Supreme Court’s recent decision on point; and
• a third article about a “rar[e] oil and gas production and oilfield services” patent infringement suit.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the court received two amicus briefs in support of the officers. The court also received a new petition in a patent case raising a question related to assignor estoppel. 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:

• an article discussing how the Fifth Circuit “said it would ‘continue to disagree with the Federal Circuit’ over whether it has appellate jurisdiction over” appeals of Walker Process patent fraud cases;
• a blog post highlighting how patent law’s “defense of assignor estoppel has been in flux”; and
• a third article detailing how Koss Corp. is “vying to save one of its patents for wireless earphones and headphones that has been at the center of its infringement suits against Apple Inc. over its AirPods wireless earbuds.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; the second comes in a patent case on remand from the Supreme Court; and the third comes in another patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in another trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; the second and third come from two veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This past Tuesday, June 29, the Supreme Court decided Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. In a five to four opinion, the Court upheld the doctrine of assignor estoppel but found that the Federal Circuit “failed to recognize the doctrine’s proper limits.” Justice Kagan authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kavanaugh, and Sotomayor. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Barrett, who was joined by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas. Here is our summary of the Court’s opinions.