FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and seven Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

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 Federal Circuit deciding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “must take a second look at a video-streaming technology patent challenged by Netflix Inc. and Hulu LLC”;
• a blog post about the potential effects of an upcoming Supreme Court case on patents; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit decision affirming claim construction rulings by the Eastern District of Texas.

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

• an article discussing an amicus brief filed by a group of intellectual property professors in support of an en banc petition in a patent case raising questions about claim construction;
• another article addressing a recent Federal Circuit decision that “clarifies infringement analysis”; and
• a third article detailing how the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to review a Federal Circuit patent case.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Utah. Finally, the court released three nonprecedential orders. One denies a petition to transfer a case to the Northern District of California; one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denies petitions for writs of mandamus; and one denies a petition and cross-petition to appeal from an order of the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent infringement case, affirming a denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing over a dissent by Judge Newman. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to transfer a case to the Central District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

Guest Post by Kristen Osenga

In any given year, the Federal Circuit covers a wide spectrum of issues in patent law, and 2020 was no different. Of course, a lot about 2020 was different — including seeing the Court hold (and now livestream) telephonic arguments — but most of the patent cases decided were similar in type to other years . . . a little patent-eligible subject matter, a little jurisdiction and venue, a case about infringement of standard essential patents, and a bit of deciding what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can and cannot do. There were no real blockbuster cases in 2020 (other than maybe the Arthrex denial of rehearing, more on that later). This could be due to the pandemic, or maybe it is a sign that patent law is settling in for a bit. Of course, that does not mean the law has settled in the right place, but that is a different issue for a different day.

For today, a few cases are worth highlighting from the Federal Circuit’s 2020 patent opinions. To be clear, this is not an exhaustive review, but rather simply a short selection noting some of the more important patent cases decided last year.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight five dispositions, three cases with new briefing, one recent oral argument, and two upcoming oral arguments.

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, Judges Wallach and Taranto affirmed the denial of a motion for rehearing by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In particular, they confirmed that the Board may consider § 101 eligibility challenges to proposed substitute claims in inter partes review proceedings. Judge O’Malley filed a dissenting opinion based on her view that the case is moot. Here is a summary of the opinion and dissent.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case addressing the ability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to consider eligibility challenges to proposed substitute claims in inter partes review proceedings. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

• Apple loses seven-year import duty legal fight – The Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. Government’s categorization of Apple’s iPad Smart Covers, thereby subjecting the models to tariffs.
• Federal Circuit Affirmed Win Against Database Platform – Hulu successfully challenged a database patent in Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC.
• Federal Circuit Vacates Denial of Attorneys’ Fees – In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit held that the district court must consider the objective unreasonableness of an infringement claim in determining whether to grant attorneys’ fees.

Here’s the latest.