FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post discussing how a recent “concurrence . . . provides more structure to the ‘skilled searcher conducting a diligent search’ estoppel test” related to inter partes review proceedings;
• an article highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit decision “suggests that plaintiffs may not have the final word” on whether “trade secret plaintiffs can try to channel cases into other courts of appeals by strategically withholding patent claims”;
• a blog post covering how the USPTO “issued a notice designating as precedential a Sua Sponte Director Review Order of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . decision granting institution in three inter partes review . . . proceedings”; and
• an article noting how, for “one day in July, Washingtonians will get access to an under-the-radar building steps away from the White House that’s filled with artifacts spanning American history.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition. This morning the court released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington, and the other comes in a whistleblower case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and five nonprecedential opinions. In the precedential opinion, the court reversed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on an incorrect interpretation of the patent statute in the context of determining what qualifies as prior art for use in an inter partes review proceeding. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a vaccine case, one in an international trade case, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and two in patent cases appealed from district courts. Notably, Judge Stark filed additional views in the international trade case, indicating potential disagreement with the court’s law governing differential pricing analyses, while Judge Prost filed a concurring opinion in the nonprecedential opinion reviewing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition presenting questions related to obviousness, a response brief addressing standards governing reissue, and denials of two petitions presenting questions related to definiteness and claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in four cases raising questions about the non-obviousness and novelty patentability requirements, the definiteness requirement, and principles of claim construction. The court also denied two petitions raising questions about eligibility and infringement. Here are the details.

Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions and a nonprecedential order. In the first opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the second opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington. Notably, Judge Clevenger dissented. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.