FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case affirming the Court of International Trade’s determination of duty-free treatment of the active ingredient in a medication for the treatment of the human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”), a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming a dismissal for lack of eligibility, a nonprecedential order unsealing the trade opinion, and an erratum. Here are are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a modified precedential order granting a motion to substitute a successor-in-interest in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination of a design patent. Compared to the original order, the modified order differs primarily in that Judge Dyk modified parts of the original order and Judge O’Malley now dissents from the grant of the motion. Here is the introduction to the modified order and the text of Judge O’Malley’s dissent.

• Federal Circuit Rules PTAB Erred on Successor-in-Interest Issue in Crocs Case – The Federal Circuit granted a motion to substitute in a case involving a design patent infringement issue between Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC and Crocs, Inc. (Crocs).
• Apple Asks To Postpone March Patent Trial Due To COVID-19 – Apple requested that the Federal Circuit postpone its patent trial to later in 2021 when the trial participants will have had a chance to be vaccinated.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case reversing in part and vacating in part a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a nonprecedential in another patent case, this time affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one precedential order granting a motion to substitute a successor-in-interest in a design patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.