FedCircuitBlog

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

• a report discussing how “Coke Morgan Stewart was sworn in as the new Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office;”
• a piece covering how “Trading Technologies (TT) has petitioned the Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision raising three significant questions about patent law and civil procedure;
• an article reporting how “[t]op Republicans on the House and Senate VA Committees are leading a bill meant to help the Department of Veterans Affairs fire poor-performing employees more quickly;” and
• a piece describing how the Federal Circuit granted an order “temporarily blocking drugmaker MSN Pharmaceuticals from launching a generic version of Novartis’ blockbuster heart-failure drug Entresto.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Notably, on Friday the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a veterans case. In addition, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to motions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 60, the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility, and the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in patent cases; the court received waivers of the right to respond to petitions in one patent case and two pro se cases; an amicus brief was filed in a case presenting a question related to the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 in appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in cases raising questions about means-plus-function claims, patent eligibility, and attorneys’ fees. The court also denied a petition for en banc rehearing in a patent case raising questions about damages, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and procedure. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new opinion in an en banc case addressing design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement; seven new petitions raising questions related to nonobviousness, claim construction, infringement, appellate review, and damages; and three denials of petitions raising questions related to definiteness, claim construction, infringement, licenses, and reduction to practice. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential dismissals. The first precedential opinion comes in a case involving allegations of infringement of numerous patents and addresses appeals from a summary judgment of infringement of a subset of claims, from a jury determination that remaining claims were not infringed, and from a determination that all asserted claims, including those infringed, were invalid. The second precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court finding certain patent claims invalid, finding certain claims infringed, and entering a damage award in excess of $6 million. The third precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The fourth precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Each of the two nonprecedential opinions affirms a judgment—one of a district court in a patent case turning on patent eligibility, another of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and four Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Highlights include one new petition regarding Covered Business Method review of patents, a reply brief and two amicus briefs in support of a petition related to patent damages and the impact of USPTO invalidations of patents on pending infringement litigation, and another reply brief in favor of a petition related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. It was another quiet week at the Supreme Court, with only one new petition, one brief, and four denials of petitions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for merits cases, highlights include an oral argument and a slew of amicus briefs, respectively, in two cases. As for petitions, only one new petition was filed, and just a handful of response and reply briefs were filed. The Supreme Court, however, denied petitions in a large number of cases, including most notably in Athena, Hikma, and HP, as we previously discussed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Highlights include the reply brief on the merits in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., four new petitions (two in patent cases and two in veterans cases), two responses to petitions (both related to patent eligibility), three reply briefs in support of petitions (in one patent case and two veterans cases), and supplemental briefs and a letter to the court in five cases as a result of the government’s amicus briefs related to patent eligibility in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. and HP Inc. v. Berkheimer. Here are the details.