FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a vaccine case, one in a veterans case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

• CBM Review: A Postmortem – The covered business method review, expiring on September 15th, has seen a rise and fall in popularity that can be attributed to the Federal Circuit.
• Oracle Loses JEDI Appeal – In Oracle America, Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision to allow the Department of Defense to issue a $10 billion, 10-year cloud-computing contract to Microsoft.
• Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction over Constitutional Questions in AIA Appeals – Affirming the decision of the lower court in Security People, Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit confirmed its ability to decide factual issues when necessary to resolve a constitutional challenge.

Here’s the latest.

• Iancu Says Congress May Be Up For Patent Eligibility Reform – In an effort to enhance clarity and guidance for innovators, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu suggests that Congressional reform of Section 101 of the Patent Act may be the key to providing a more predictable and consistent analytical framework for determining what is patentable and what is not.
• Chanel Adds Camellia Drawing to its Arsenal of Trademarks – This past July, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted trademark registration for Chanel’s five-petaled camellia drawing used in connection with the luxury brand’s products and packaging.
• Apple, Cisco, Google, Intel Sue PTO Over Its America Invents Act Policies – On Monday, Apple Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., and Intel Corp. sued PTO Director Andrei Iancu in the Northern District of California. Using a two-pronged litigation strategy, technology industry giants assert that the current USPTO policies deprive the tech industry of its access to the America Invents Act.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case.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

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

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writs of certiorari in (1) ThermoLife International LLC v. Iancu, (2) SRAM, LLC v. FOX Factory, Inc., and (3) Halim v. United States.
• Aquesitive submitted a brief in opposition to the petition in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
• Two replies were submitted to the Court, the first by Smith & Nephew in Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. and the second by TCL in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.

• Conventional Technologies Used in Unconventional Ways – The Federal Circuit points out that “conventional separation technologies can be used in unconventional ways” in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.
• Foreign Visitor’s Unborn Child Not a ‘Person’ – A fetus traveling to the United States does not qualify as a legal “person” under the Vaccine Act.
• Judgment as a Discovery Sanction was Appropriate – A TTAB trademark cancellation in the form of a discovery sanction subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Here’s the latest.

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

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) Blodgett v. United States, (2) United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC, and (3) Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc.
• The United States, Arthrex, Inc, and Smith & Nephew, Inc. filed related responses in the following petitions: (1) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., (2) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., (3) Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., and (4) United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• Only one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court this week in Morsa v. Iancu by Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Here are the details.

• Federal Circuit Won’t Undo Intel Wins – The Federal Circuit upheld PTAB rulings in Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc., cementing victory for Intel and other tech companies.
• Flash-of-Genius as Evidence of Eligibility – Steve Morsa filed a new Supreme Court petition using the Court’s “flash of genius” argument to justify granting certiorari.
• Another Arthrex Petition – Arthrex filed its second petition, out of three total petitions for writ of certiorari, challenging the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

Here’s the latest.

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

• Steve Morsa submitted the only petition for writ of certiorari coming from the Federal Circuit this week in Morsa v. Iancu.
• For both Lea v. United States and LaTurner v. United States the government filed a singular brief in opposition opposing a writ for either petition.
• Lastly, two waivers of right to respond were submitted to the Supreme Court in both Thomas v. Iancu and Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.

Here are the details.

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

• The following five new petitions were submitted to the Court: (1) Primbas, et al. v. Iancu, (2) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., et al., (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., (4) Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., and (5) Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Also, in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Willowood, LLC submitted its reply to Syngenta’s brief in opposition. Willowood claims Syngenta’s brief avoids the key issues raised in the petition.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court received two waivers of right to respond for the petitions of Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank and Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al.

Here are the details.