FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court received a new petition in a patent case, which raised an issue related to the Patent and Trademark Office’s ability to deny inter partes review based on pending litigation concerning related patents. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two pro se petitions. Additionally, the court denied a petition concerning post-institution discovery rulings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to real-parties-in-interest disputes. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case granting a petition for panel rehearing to the extent that the panel withdrew and replaced its precedential opinion in the same case. The order indicates that the precedential opinion, also issued today, differs from the original opinion only to the extent that the panel added one additional sentence, which explains why summary judgment was inappropriate. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case. Here is text from the order and the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, two nonprecedential opinions in pro se patent cases, and a nonprecedential opinion in a taking cases. The court also issued an erratum and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the erratum and summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case affirming a judgment of noninfringement. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. The introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments can be found here.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, reversing a district court’s judgment on indefiniteness. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. The introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments can be found here.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, a second in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a third in a case dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

• Federal Circuit Judge Calls High Court IP Decisions “Inconsistent” – At a conference on Thursday, Judge Raymond Chen noted that the Supreme Court’s policy towards novelty in the patent-eligibility inquiry seemed to be at odds with the Court’s decisions.
• Intel Trial Will Stay in Waco as Federal Circuit Declines to Weigh in – Judge Alan Albright will be able to hear the case involving VLSI Technology and Intel in Waco in February after the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Intel Corp.
• Iancu Leaves Pro-Patentee Legacy as USPTO Director – Andrei Iancu stepped down on Wednesday after three years of instituting policies that favored patentees and that clarified USPTO procedures.

Here’s the latest.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions this morning on its website. The court, however, did issue a nonprecedential order on January 21 that went uncovered on the blog. In the order, the court denied a request for a writ of mandamus blocking the transfer of a patent case from Austin to Waco, Texas. Here is text from that order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court scheduled oral argument in a en banc veterans case. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. Highlights in pending en banc petitions in patent cases include a new petition raising questions related to enablement and claim construction; a petition and an invitation for response in a case raising a question related to injunctive relief; a response to a petition raising a question related to venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and denials of four petitions raising questions related to intervention in inter partes review, claim construction, and due process. Here are the details.