FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Five new petitions were filed with the Court–four in patent cases and one in a pro se case. Additionally, the respondents in two different patent cases filed their briefs in opposition, while the Court requested a response to a petition in a government contract case. Upon the parties’ request, the Court dismissed Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina Inc.. Finally, the Court denied two other petitions, one in a trademark case and one in a patent case.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court invited the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility.
• Five new petitions were filed in patent, veterans, Tucker Act, and trademark cases.
• Seventeen new briefs in opposition were filed in sixteen cases.
• Five new reply briefs were filed.
• One supplemental brief was filed.
• One amicus brief was filed in a patent case.
• Five waivers of right to respond were submitted.
• The Court denied eight petitions.

Here are the details.

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 an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received one new petition for writ of certiorari in Oracle America, Inc. v. United States.
• Two new amicus briefs were filed with the Court in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, the first by a group of patent practitioners in Chicago and the second by the New York Bar Association.
• One new waiver of right to respond was filed by Illumina in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred by invalidating a claim for anticipation when the relevant petition asserted only obviousness. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case affirming PTAB findings of obviousness. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new amicus brief was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance in a case that has been granted certiorari, United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• The Court received eight new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new reply briefs were filed with the Court in the following cases: (1) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., (2) Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc., and (3) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC.
• One new amicus brief was filed in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation by Jonathan Stroud
• Three new waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in ten cases.

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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include modified opinions issued in two patent cases raising questions related to eligibility; new petitions filed in two cases raising questions related to obviousness; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to venue; and the denial of petitions in cases raising questions related to jurisdiction over an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, restriction requirements, and patent term adjustments. Here are the details.

As we previously reported, yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a modified panel opinion in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because Ariosa Diagnostics filed a petition for rehearing en banc. In the modified panel opinion, Judges Lourie and Moore maintained their original position, reversing the district court, which had held that the claims at issue were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. While the modified panel opinion did not change the holding of the court, it did more explicitly lay out the facts of the case that affected the court’s reasoning. Judge Reyna still dissented, but also issued a modified opinion. Here is a summary of the modified opinions.