FedCircuitBlog

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 oral arguments last week in Bufkin v. McDonough. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed in two patent cases and a veterans case, two new briefs in opposition were filed in patent cases, and one new amicus brief was filed in a veterans case. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new responses to three petitions raising questions relating to the authority of the International Trade Commission, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and the use of comparable licenses to calculate damages awards. The court also received two new amicus briefs supporting a petition relating to attorney fees and invited a response to the same petition. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising issues related to design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and personal jurisdiction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition raising a question about the correct interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) and denials of petitions in two cases raising questions related to obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion concerns a “seven-day trip of two transcatheter heart valve systems in and out of San Francisco”—and whether this act of “importation” was exempt from patent infringement under the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Judge Lourie dissented from the majority’s interpretation of the relevant statutory language and precedent to exempt infringement in this situation. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the denial of fees. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.