FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an en banc veterans case. The court unanimously held that equitable tolling is not available in this particular case, but disagreed by an equal vote on the reasoning supporting this judgment. In particular, the judges disagreed as to the general question of whether equitable tolling is available with respect to the effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1). The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, affirming the Board over a partial dissent by Judge Prost. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In patent cases, the court received four new petitions this week, addressing issues of claim construction, the replacement of a primary prior art reference after institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the evaluation of patent eligibility, and contractual patent ownership. The court also received a response to a petition that raised a question related to the power of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to terminate an instituted proceeding on the eve of a merits-based final written decision. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions, one in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court affirmed the Boards in both opinions. Here are the opinions’ introductions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent infringement case and five summary affirmances under Federal Circuit Rule 36. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a list of the summary affirmances.

• PTAB Axes 2 Uniloc Patents, Trims Another In Tech Giant Row – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board handed down three decisions invalidating Uniloc patents under the theory that the patent claims were obvious.
• U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Merck appeal in hepatitis C patent fight with Gilead – The Supreme Court declined to revive a $2.54 billion jury verdict for Merck after the Federal Circuit found that Merck’s patent claims concerning a family of compounds used to treat hepatitis C were overly broad.
• Fed. Circ. Won’t Undo PTAB Rulings On Motorola Patents – On Tuesday, in a trio of unanimous opinions, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions that upheld Motorola patents.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a vaccine case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in an antitrust case and one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the judgment.

• Federal Circuit Sidesteps Notice Issue – In Iron Oak Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, the Federal Circuit limited its decision regarding notice only to Microsoft and refused to decide whether manufacturers related to Microsoft received sufficient infringement notice.
• District Court Abused Its Discretion in Granting Attorney’s Fees – An award of attorney’s fees in Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv n’ Care, Ltd. was reversed by the Federal Circuit for failing to prove infringement claims were “sufficiently meritless.”
• Chrimar Systems v. ALE USA Inc. – Charimar Systems seeks Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. ALE USA Inc.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a case sanctioning an attorney, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. 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 new petitions filed in six cases raising questions relating to design patent claim construction, damages, claim construction, eligibility, inequitable conduct, non-obviousness, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; three requests for responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of six petitions raising issues including the Appointments Clause, claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and damages. Here are the details.