FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s analysis of the non-obviousness requirement, and venue. The court also denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to anticipation, the evidentiary basis of an invalidity finding, and the proper standard of review of agency determinations. Here are the details.

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

• an article focusing on the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision overruling a district court’s conclusion that [patent] claims were directed to ineligible subject matter;
• a blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that a forum selection clause did not apply to inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
• an article addressing how the Federal Circuit found that “claims of a patent covering an artificial heart valve were erroneously held to be unpatentable by the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board”; and
• a blog post discussing how “the Federal Circuit affirmed an exclusion order by the [International Trade] Commission” in a patent case.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States International Trade Commission. The opinion addresses arguments the Commission erred with regard to its analysis of claim construction and infringement. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to the weight given to expert witness testimony during claim construction, the evidentiary basis of an invalidity finding, and the proper standard of review of agency determinations pursuant to Securities Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947). The court also received a response to a petition for rehearing en banc concerning deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also denied a petition for rehearing en banc in a case raising questions relating to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

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

• an article discussing the long-term impact of the Federal Circuit’s decision concerning two patents covering the drug Eliquis;
• a report detailing the ITC’s urging of the Federal Circuit to uphold its ruling of infringement of Jeep’s trade dress;
• an article discussing a recent bid protest in the context of challenging government agency decisions; and
• a report focusing on a precedential order by the Federal Circuit regarding the PTAB’s conclusion that it is not bound by agreements to arbitrate validity disputes.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case over a dissent by Judge O’Malley. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims and the other in an appeal from a determination of the International Trade Commission in a patent dispute. Additionally, the court issued a nonprecedential order unsealing its opinion in the appeal from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court invited a response to a petition concerning patent eligibility. Additionally, the court denied a petition concerning means-plus-function claim limitations. Lastly, the court granted a motion to withdraw a petition concerning the extent of estoppel in claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions this week raising issues concerning the scope of appellate review, patent eligibility, and the extent of estoppel with respect to claim constructions. Additionally, the court invited responses in two cases addressing the court’s jurisdiction and the case addressing the extent of estoppel in claim constructions. Lastly, the court denied petitions in three cases raising questions related to patent eligibility, inventorship, and the evaluation of expert opinions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. One affirmed an appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, while the other affirmed an appeal from the International Trade Commission. Here are links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Federal Circuit Judges Signal Support for Facebook Patent Win – On BloombergLaw.com, Perry Cooper reports that judges of the Federal Circuit “appear to agree with Facebook Inc. that [certain] patents . . . are invalid as abstract.”

Fed Circ Probes Validity of Cancer Treatment Patent from $1.2 Bln Win – Blake Brittain reports for Reuters that a panel of judges for the Federal Circuit “grilled [attorneys] on the validity of a cancer treatment patent that netted them nearly $1.2 billion.”

En Banc: When Employees Leave with a Half-Baked Invention – On PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch discusses Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission and the case’s pending petition for rehearing en banc.

Federal Circuit Tears Up Road Map for Keeping Patent Cases in Texas – Scott Graham posted an article on Law.com reporting on how the Federal Circuit “ordered [Western District of Texas Judge] Albright to transfer patent actions brought by Ikorongo Technology LLC against Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics.”