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 about the non-obviousness and novelty patentability requirements, the definiteness requirement, and principles of claim construction. The court also denied two petitions raising questions about eligibility and infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the court received the appellee’s supplemental brief. As for patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to the ability to revise infringement contentions during litigation and denied two petitions raising questions related respectively to vacatur of a preliminary injunction and claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and another in a government contract case. In the patent case, the Federal Circuit concluded that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a patent owner from presenting an infringement theory at trial. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders, one dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction and another granting a motion to dismiss. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and a link to the order granting the motion to dismiss.

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

• a post commenting on the Federal Circuit’s rehearing grant rates and how to achieve rehearing at the court;
• discussion of a letter sent by two U.S. senators to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning patent law’s disclosure requirements; and
• an article discussing a recent case addressing subject matter eligibility of software claims based on improvement to computer functionality.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in cases addressing trademark cancellation, damages for patent infringement, and alleged inequitable conduct during patent prosecution. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in cases addressing government employment and the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• New Suits Against Amazon Barred Under Claim Preclusion – Relying on a 1907 decision, the Federal Circuit bars suits against Amazon’s customers.
• Supreme Court Will Not Hear Eli Lilly Patent Appeal – This week, the Supreme Court denied two petitions both relating to a chemotherapy treatment for lung cancer.
• Federal Circuit Upholds Dumping Duties – Chinese solar cell companies were kept accountable for dumping thanks to a recent Federal Circuit ruling.

Here’s the latest.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received six new petitions this week in (1) BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., (2) Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., (3) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank., (4) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al., (5) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and (6) Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
• In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast submitted its reply to the ITC’s brief in opposition.
• Finally, the State of Indiana submitted identical amicus briefs in favor of the petitioners in both Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes the recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received responses for the following five petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission, and (5) Ford Motor Co. v. United States.
• The Supreme Court received replies in the four following petitions: (1) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., (3) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., and (4) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
• In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., Baxter International filed an amicus brief in favor of the respondent.

Here are the details.

• Justices Told To Skip Challenge Over Doctrine Of Equivalents – Eli Lilly and Co. is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a challenge of a Federal Circuit ruling over when patent infringement can be found under the doctrine of equivalents.
• The Federal Circuit Clarifies The Notice Requirements Of The Administrative Procedure Act – How do the notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act operate in the context of claim amendments during inter partes reviews?
• Uniloc’s Bluetooth Patent Case Against LG Revived – LG Electronics must face revived claims that it infringed a Bluetooth connectivity patent.

Here’s the latest.