FedCircuitBlog

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 The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions.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.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in two patent cases related to so-called skinny labelling and eligibility, respectively; a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement; a reply brief was submitted in a veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; and, finally, the Court denied more than 20 petitions. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petition cases, four new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases, a takings case, and a pro se case; reply briefs in support of petitions were submitted in a patent case and a case involving application of the Equal Access to Justice Act; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is this month’s 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 a disposition in a veterans case, two new patent cases that attracted amicus briefs, and a reply brief in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received four new responses to petitions raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief; the process and standard for determining indefiniteness; and the standard for granting a motion to seal court records. The court also denied two petitions raising questions related to the on sale bar and 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 raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief; the on-sale bar; and the standard for granting a motion to seal court records. The court also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction. Finally, the court received a motion to expedite issuance of a mandate and ordered a response to the motion in the previously-mentioned case raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. Here are the details.