FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, three new petitions were filed raising questions related to procedure and eligibility, the written description requirement, and sanctions. The court also lifted a stay on a case raising questions about the doctrine of equivalents. Finally, the court denied a petition for rehearing raising a question about claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Northern District of Georgia and the other from the Middle District of Florida. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. As for the orders, one concerns an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board; one addresses a petition for a writ of mandamus in a patent case being handled by the District of Utah; and one addresses an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The final two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the dismissals.

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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three petitions, one raising questions related to subject matter eligibility and two raising questions related to the applicable test for non-obviousness of designs under design patent law. The court invited a response to the petitions raising questions related to the applicable test for non-obviousness of designs under design patent law. Finally, the court denied a petition raising a question related to claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is another update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions for patent cases and another that addresses jurisdiction. We also highlight four new cases (a contract case, a trade case, a takings case, and a tax case), all of which are set to be argued next month, along with a patent case. Additionally, we highlight an argument recap in patent case. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit recently issued its opinion in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by a district court that Bard’s patent claims are directed to patent-ineligible printed matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, moreover, lack an inventive concept. With respect to the cross-appeal, the court similarly considered whether MedComp’s patent claims are ineligible. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judges Chen and Wallach, the court reversed the district court’s judgment in the lead appeal and vacated and remanded the district court’s judgmebnt in the cross-appeal. This is our opinion summary.

On February 10, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a district court that Bard’s patent claims are directed to patent-ineligible printed matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, moreover, lack an inventive concept. With respect to the cross-appeal, the court will similarly consider whether MedComp’s patent claims are ineligible. The panel hearing the oral argument included Judges Chen, Wallach, and Hughes. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. In the first, the court vacated a preliminary injunction and remanded a patent case appealed from the District of Nebraska. In the second, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims.  In the third, the Federal circuit affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Tennessee. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. In the first, the court reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded a patent case appealed from the District of Utah. In the second, the Federal Circuit affirmed another judgment in a patent case, this one appealed from the Southern District of Indiana. Here are the introduction to the opinions.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene eleven panels to consider 48 cases this week and on Tuesday of next week. Of these 48 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 35. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. Of the argued cases, three cases attracted amicus briefs. Two are appeals of judgments of patent ineligibility, and one is an appeal of an order to request the Food and Drug Administration to remove (or “delist”) a patent from the FDA’s so-called Orange Book. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

Three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Bard’s claims are directed to patent-ineligible printed matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, moreover, lack an inventive concept. With respect to the cross-appeal, the court will similarly consider whether MedComp’s claims are ineligible. This is our argument preview.