FedCircuitBlog

Here is an 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 three new opinions and dispositions in a Little Tucker Act case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a takings case, and a patent case. We also highlight three new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a patent case, a trademark case, and a veterans case. We also highlight new briefing in four patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a patent case and government contract case. Here are the details.

Here is an 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 three opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: an Equal Pay Act case, a vaccine case, and a veterans case. Additionally, we highlight two new patent cases, new briefing in two patent cases, and oral arguments in nine cases last and this month. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article about the Federal Circuit affirming a holding that “lens and filter features aren’t eligible for patent protection”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit “hand[ing] Moderna Inc a win” in a patent dispute related to “Moderna’s blockbuster COVID-19 vaccines”; and
• a blog post about “the Federal Circuit . . . interpret[ing] the claim term ‘a.’”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post about the United States government’s statement of interest in the patent infringement case involving COVID-19 vaccines; and
• an article about the U.S. International Trade Commission “bann[ing] imports of video-streaming fitness devices made by Peloton Interactive Inc and iFit Inc.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing Moderna’s claim “that Pfizer and BioNTech unlawfully copied Moderna’s inventions”;
• an article summarizing the Federal Circuit recent ruling “that ‘plain meaning’ [of patent claims] cannot be interpreted in a vacuum”; and
• a third article highlighting the Federal Circuit’s decision to allow Apple and several other tech companies to “continue to import and sell their smartphone devices.”

• Supreme Court Denies Patent Petitions on Arthrex, Eligibility – The U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari in two cases coming out of the Federal Circuit: IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and WhitServe LLC v. Donuts Inc.
• Amgen, GSK Urge Justices To Allow Patents On Genus Claims – A trio of amicus briefs filed on Monday urge the Supreme Court to grant Merck’s petition for certiorari and ensure that companies are able to patent genus claims.
• COVID-19 Vaccine Leader Moderna “Not Aware of Any Significant Intellectual Property Impediments” in Development of its Vaccine Despite Mixed Results at PTAB – As global leaders in COVID-19 vaccine development receive promising results from their clinical trials, the focus turns to whether legal intellectual property obstacles may impede vaccine distribution.  

Here’s the latest.

• Federal Circuit Says University Can’t Be Pulled Into Patent Suit – In Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor College of Medicine, sovereign immunity protected a university from being an involuntary plaintiff in a patent suit, but the suit could still proceed without the patent owner.
• Moderna Loses Challenge to Arbutus Patent on Vaccine Technology – Moderna could appeal to the Federal Circuit after a loss that might create obstacles in developing a coronavirus vaccine.
• NFL Team Loses Race to the Trademark Office, but It Might Not Matter – Being first in line to trademark the Redskins’ new team name won’t matter without objective evidence of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce at the time of filing

Here’s the latest.