FedCircuitBlog

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This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments.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.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases: one reversing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one affirming a decision by the International Trade Commission. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part a decision by the Central District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one precedential opinion in patent case appealed from a district court, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance of a decision by the United State International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions of the opinions and the summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent infringement case and five summary affirmances under Federal Circuit Rule 36. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a list of the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case decided by the International Trade Commission, a precedential opinion in a veterans case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a case decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions of the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and another patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a trade case, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the court issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.