FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article detailing “orders [that] are the latest in a recent series from the Federal Circuit disagreeing with Albright’s analysis of transfer requests”;
• a blog post similarly discussing “[f]our new mandamus orders from the Federal Circuit stemming from Judge Alan Albright’s court in Waco Texas”;
• another article emphasizing the “the importance of contract principles in arbitrability determination[s]”; and
• another blog post explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit [is] continu[ing] its stringent (if misguided) application of the scope of subject matter eligibility by invalidating claims.”

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

• an article about last Friday’s Fed Circuit Blog symposium, noting how two law professors “argued . . . that it might be time to reevaluate the 40-year ‘experiment’ of the Federal Circuit”;
• another article about Friday’s symposium, explaining that other “law professors . . . were torn between whether the appeals court was ‘overstepping’ or reacting rationally to a judge who does not always take the court’s direction”;
• a blog post discussing the backgrounds of the judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit ruling that a “heart monitor patent . . . is invalid for claiming only an abstract idea.”

Today the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. The first comes in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the second comes in a case appealed from the District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Justices Told Patentees Deserve Fee Refund For PTAB Losses – A patent owner seeks Supreme Court review of a Federal Circuit’s ruling that one cannot recover fees and otherwise be compensated for patents invalidated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The petitioner argues such a ruling is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment takings clause.
• Companies ‘Doing Backflips’ at Top Patent Court Seek SCOTUS Help – A petition before the Supreme Court seeks to resolve uncertainty for parties in patent infringement cases who, under the current standard, risk revealing product secrets in order to challenge a competitor’s patent.
• SCOTUS Won’t Resuscitate Heart Monitor Patent Case – The Supreme Court refused to review a Federal Circuit decision that held that a cardiac monitor patent was a patent-eligible improvement to heart monitoring equipment and not directed to an abstract idea.

Here’s the latest.

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

• Two response and reply briefs were filed with the Court by the United States and by Smith & Nephew in a case that has been granted certiorari, United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• Two amicus briefs were filed with the Court: the first by the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, and the second by a non-profit advocacy organization, US Inventor, Inc., in Akeva L.L.C. v. Nike, Inc.
• One new waiver of right to respond was filed by Iancu in Samaranayake v. Iancu.
• The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in the case of InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC.

Here are the details.

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.

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) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC, (2) Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC v. Iancu, and (3) Kinghorn v. United States.
• Two new responses to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by the Alfred E. Mann Foundation in Cochlear Corp. v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, and the second by the government in ThermoLife International LLC v. Iancu.
• One new reply to the petition in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC was filed with the Court by Rovi.
• Three amicus briefs were filed in Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., all in support of Idenix.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in three cases: (1) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp., (2) Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc., and (3) Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc.

Here are the details.

• USPTO Says Interested Party Rulings Aren’t ‘Shenanigans’ – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office defended against accusations that the agency engaged in “shenanigans” when it did not require Google to be named as an interested party during a review of a mobile website patent.
• Guitar Pedalboard Patent Sent for New PTAB Review by Fed. Cir. – The Federal Circuit ruled on Monday that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred when the board analyzed a guitar pedalboard patent and rejected an earlier electrical relay patent as analogous prior art.
• Heart Monitor Maker Asks High Court to Clear Eligibility Muddle – InfoBionic Inc. suggests that a Supreme Court review of its case involving a dispute over a cardiac monitoring patent could provide clarity around which inventions are eligible for patents.

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.

• Federal Circuit Snubs Extrinsic Evidence – Courts are not required to consult extrinsic evidence in every patent eligibility case.
• Defining the Contours of Arthrex Decision – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision has resulted in a large number of PTAB appeals.
• Federal Circuit Upholds Application of Dedication-Disclosure Doctrine – The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s application of the dedication-disclosure doctrine.

Here’s the latest.