FedCircuitBlog

• Federal Circuit’s O’Malley: Supreme Court doesn’t have stomach for another 101 case – Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley recently expressed concern over whether the Supreme Court will address patentable subject matter.
• An Argument for Mandatory Production of Limited Secondary Consideration Evidence by Petitioners in Inter Partes Reviews – Kristin Doyle advocates for the Patent Trial and Appeals Board to adopt the same approach to secondary consideration evidence as the Federal Circuit
• What We Learned About Biologics on Summer Vacation – Broad claim construction, licensing, and antitrust concerns have been among the trends for cases involving biologics at the Federal Circuit.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in four patent cases raising questions related to remedies, transfer of venue, novelty, non-obviousness, and real-party-in-interest rules, as well as a response to a petition raising questions related to double-patenting. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to patent claim construction and new invitations to respond to petitions in two cases raising questions related to claim preclusion and double patenting. Here are the details.

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, two new cases, two cases with new briefing, and one upcoming oral argument. Here are the details.

• U.S. Wrongly Linked 3 Steel Companies In Duty Probe – The U.S. Department of Commerce improperly tied steel companies together in an anti-dumping investigation, said the Federal Circuit.
• All Substantial Rights Deemed Test Informative – With the decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit endorses the “all substantial rights” test for the first time.
• Section 315(a) Calls At Institution Cannot Be Reviewed – Finally, the Federal Circuit applied the recent Supreme Court decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs to a Section 315(a) and (b) case.

Here’s the latest.

Recently the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., a case we have been tracking because it attracted two amicus briefs. In the opinion, Judges O’Malley and Chen affirm the lower court’s ruling that Sandoz failed to prove that the patents-in-suit were invalid. Judge Reyna filed a dissenting opinion. Here is a summary of the opinion and dissent.

• Amgen Defeats Appeal Over Arthritis Drug Patents – Amgen successfully defends its multi-billion-dollar arthritis drug patents in the Federal Circuit on Wednesday.
• Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ax Of Aircraft Space-Saving IP – The Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, invalidated two aircraft patents in B/E Aerospace Inc. v. C&D Zodiac Inc.
• No rehearing for Biogen in Tecfidera patent appeal – Biogen was denied an en banc rehearing of Biogen International GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC, finalizing Banner’s win in the Federal Circuit.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a vaccine case, and three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

About once a month we provide an update on activity in patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. There we also highlight non-patent cases that attract amicus briefs, but only once those cases have been scheduled for oral argument. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight three dispositions, four recent oral arguments, and one upcoming oral argument.

As we have reported in earlier posts this week, the Federal Circuit last week heard four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the court addressed the issue of obviousness-type double patenting, which is an equitable doctrine aimed at preventing patent owners from extending patent protection beyond the statutorily-afforded term. As we noted in our argument preview, one of the main issues presented to the court concerning this doctrine in this case was whether Immunex owns “all substantial rights in [the patents-in-suit], including the ability to control patent prosecution.” Last week the parties presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Here is our argument recap.