FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court recently denied two petitions. One raised questions related to the notice required to collect damages for infringement. The other raised a question related to the appropriate timing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for panel rehearing and en banc rehearing. The petition comes in a patent case appealed from the District of New Jersey. Notably, Judge O’Malley wrote a dissenting opinion, and Judge Newman dissented without opinion. Here are the introductions to the order and the dissenting opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, five new amicus brief were filed in support of the appellant. As for requests for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received four new petitions raising questions relating to patent eligibility and claim construction. The court also invited a response to a petition that raised questions concerning the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the appropriate timing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal. 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 tolling for post-trial motions, the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding, and a denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order transfer. The court also invited a response to a petition concerning deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Lastly, the court denied petitions in two cases relating to transfer and the standard for review for petitions for writs of mandamus and a third case relating to patent eligibility. 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 discussing how the Patent Office “let’s women shine in court while Big Law sends men,”
• commentary on a Federal Circuit decision addressing the timeline limitations on interlocutory appeals,
• a blog post discussing a transition in the position of the Deputy Director of the USPTO, and
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit case that may determine an Appointments Clause challenge to the members of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Apple Must Face Apple Watch Patent Claims, Fed Circ. Affirms – Blake Brittain posted an article on Reuters.com about how Apple “lost its bid to escape patent infringement claims over its Apple Watch technology . . . at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

Teva’s Generic Label Not Skinny Enough to Protect from $234M Damages to GSK – In an article written by Khadijah M. Silver on MedCityNews.com, Silver reports that the Federal Circuit issued a “controversial” decision about Teva’s “skinny label.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one affirming a district court’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and another dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one affirming a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and another affirming a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.