FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and nine nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the nonprecedential orders denied a petition for appellate attorney fees and costs following a Federal Circuit decision reversing and remanding a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders remand cases appealed from the Northern District of West Virginia. Finally, five of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals and erratum.

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

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision “clarifying the requirements for the disclosure of technology that is ready for patenting at a public event to qualify as being ‘in public use’”;
• an article about a Federal Circuit ruling finding “federal workers are generally not entitled to extra pay for being exposed to COVID-19 through their jobs”; and
• another article about the ramifications of “US Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal’s reinstatement of two companies she’d removed from high-profile [inter partes review] patent challenges.”

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

• an article about how “[a] Federal Circuit panel on Tuesday went in circles trying to lock down how a party can disavow part of an exhibit attached to its complaint”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit holding “raised tariffs on imports of steel derivatives such as nails and fasteners didn’t exceed the scope of the president’s authority”; and
• a third article about “[c]hipmaking giant Intel Corp. . . . settl[ing] a patent lawsuit brought by wireless technology developer ParkerVision Inc.”

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

• an article about a mandamus petition claiming “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal ‘unlawfully’ interfered with a patent validity challenge”; and
• a blog post about the Federal Circuit denying “General Motor’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge Alan Albright to transfer a patent infringement case.”

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

• an article about how a “Federal Circuit panel . . . seemed wary that . . . large companies used a roundabout way to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Fintiv policy”;
• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding that two patents “for remote education and training systems is patent ineligible”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit upholding a lower court’s decision related to Amazon.com Inc.’s virtual assistant Alexa.

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

• an article about “a bid by Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Corp and others to revive their challenge to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that made it harder to contest the validity of patents issued by the agency”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s skepticism about “allegations that [Facebook’s] news feed infringed on Usability Sciences’ 2014 patent”; and
• a blog post about the Federal Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Amazon.com, Inc.

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

• an article about Intel “doubl[ing] down on its Federal Circuit bid to ax a $2.18 billion jury verdict against it”;
• a blog post about a Patent Trial and Appeal Board judge withdrawing from an inter partes review proceeding; and
• another article about the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office making trademark applications related to green technology and climate change eligible for reduced fees.

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

• an article about the Federal Circuit allowing Chief U.S. Judge Colm Connolly of the District of Delaware to “inquire into compliance with his standing orders into ownership transparency” in patent cases;
• another article about the Federal Circuit denying a motion to enjoin a litigant “from commercially marketing generic versions of [a] sleep disorder drug”; and
• a third article about a Federal Circuit decision regarding whether under a pretrial discovery order in a patent case is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.

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

• an article about the U.S. International Trade Commission finding “Apple Watches with an electrocardiogram (ECG) function infringe patents belonging to medical device maker AliveCor Inc”;
• another article about Amgen Inc.’s arguments to the Supreme Court that “patents needn’t spell out every possible iteration of an invention in order to be eligible for protection”;
• a third article about “VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corp . . . agree[ing] to end a patent dispute in Delaware”; and
• a fourth article about “[t]he Federal Circuit . . . order[ing] a California company to defend patent litigation it filed in Texas, as its competitor in optical filters is asking to have the case transferred.”

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

• a blog post about some of the most common claim drafting issues “for biotech, chemical and pharma patent applications”;
• an article about how “VLSI Technology LLC plans to appeal an administrative ruling that wiped out 12 of its microchip patent claims”; and
• another article about “Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc. . . . [urging] the Federal Circuit to undo a federal injunction forcing it to delist a narcolepsy drug-related patent.”