FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post discussing how, in a patent case addressing venue, “the Federal Circuit delved into franchise law — holding that independently owned and operated VW/Hyundai car dealerships located in the W.D. Texas do not count as a ‘place of business’ of the car distributors”; and
• an article analyzing how the Federal Circuit recently “affirm[ed] decisions by [the] International Trade Commission [and] patent board” in cases involving computer-chip patents.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a precedential order granting two petitions for writ of mandamus against the Western District of Texas to dismiss or transfer cases. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in consolidated patent cases appealed from the International Trade Commission and Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. The case addresses whether the ITC abused its discretion in refusing to modify or rescind a civil penalty after a patent was found to be invalid. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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

• a blog post “assessing responses to the PTO’s 2021 patent eligibility study”;
• another blog post explaining how the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded an International Trade Commission decision in a patent case based on an abuse of discretion in admitting expert testimony;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to invalidate patent claims for indefiniteness; and
• another article detailing how “Qualcomm Inc. convinced the Federal Circuit that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office improperly invalidated parts of its semiconductor patent based on admissions made in the patent itself.”

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

• a blog post discussing venue in patent litigation in the context of “Chief Justice Roberts provid[ing] his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary”;
• an article analyzing arguments recently made for why a “suit against [an] ex-USPTO director should stay alive”; and
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit recently “held that the term ‘lifter member’ invokes means plus function (MPF) claiming.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the second opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit vacated a judgment based on a claim construction adopted by the International Trade Commission and remanded the case. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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.