FedCircuitBlog

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.”

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 $948 million patent infringement verdict between Intel and VLSI Technology LLC;
• another article about a Federal Circuit decision finding a generic cancer drug infringes on “Abbvie’s Pharmacyclics and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Biotech . . . blockbuster cancer drug Imbruvica”; and
• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision “involving American National Manufacturing and Sleep Number Corp.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s decision that specific claims are unpatentable, reversed the Board’s construction of the phrase “used for electrical interconnection,” and remanded the case. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware; and the third comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and one transfers an appeal to the District of Maryland.