FedCircuitBlog

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 The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions.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 Finally, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders.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.

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 opinion that found a “Scheduling Order . . . went too far in mandating additional substantive discovery and re-briefing” in light of a pending motion to transfer;
• an article about “[t]he fourth round of a multibillion-dollar dispute between Intel and VLSI”; and
• another blog post about how Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC “has the potential of shaking up [patent law’s] disclosure 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 a “multibillion-dollar patent infringement case at the Federal Circuit”;
• another article about the declining number of Delaware patent filings; and
• a blog post about the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issuing sanctions based on abuse of the inter partes review process.

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 petition asking the Supreme Court to review a district judge’s decision not to recuse himself despite a family member’s ownership of stock in a party;
• an article about Intel’s appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding “a jury’s $2.1 billion patent verdict against it”; and
• another article about the impact of the Federal Circuit’s decision that “AI systems are not eligible to be inventors under US patent statutes.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) does not infringe certain patent claims and also affirmed the district court’s denial of a declaratory judgment of infringement. Late yesterday the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to remand to the Western District of Texas; one grants a motion to transfer venue; one grants a motion to remand to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; one summarily affirms; and two grant motions to dismiss. Here is text from the orders and links to the dismissals.

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

• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit determined that an “Apple Inc lawsuit . . . over Wi-Fi messaging can move forward in California”;
• another article detailing how “the CAFC concluded that the district court’s constructions incorrectly limited claim scope to a preferred embodiment and rendered certain dependent claims superfluous”; and
• yet another article explaining how, in Intel Corp v XMTT, Inc., “Intel was dealt a loss in its challenge of a computer memory patent when the Federal Circuit on Tuesday refused to consider the tech company’s arguments that the court said were ‘clearly inconsistent’ with what it presented to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Both opinions review findings that claims were obvious. The first opinion affirms the Board, while the second reverses. The court also issued a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in an Equal Access to Justice Act case and two in patent cases raising questions related to eligibility and enhanced damages; members of Congress filed an amicus brief in an employment law case that involves interpretation of the Reservists Pay Security Act; the government submitted a brief in opposition in a case concerning the Tucker Act and another brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the non-obviousness requirement; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied review in four cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. The opinion reversed a finding of invalidity. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in the fourth case, Judge Prost wrote a concurring opinion to explain that had a patentability challenge been preserved it likely would have succeeded. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders concerning, respectively, a dismissal for failure to prosecute and two voluntary dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.