FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article arguing that, because the Supreme Court’s two-step inquiry for patent-ineligible “abstract ideas” did not define “abstract ideas,” it has had “disastrous consequences”;
• a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit’s requirement that “convoyed goods ‘function together with the patented article,’ and not merely be sold along with the infringing product as a matter of convenience, differs from the rule followed in the U.K., France, Japan, and Germany”;
• a report highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit case “reaffirmed a critical principle in patent law: When a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication is that they are distinct elements”; and
• a blog post discussing how an en banc case at the Federal Circuit “presents important questions about statutory interpretation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential opinions. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Northern District of West Virginia. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in a case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the other comes in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, each dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, two summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinions comes in a patent case on appeal from the International Trade Commission. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in a patent cases, while one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and seven nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Northern District of West Virginia. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in patent cases, and one comes in a government contract case. Of the nonprecedential orders released today, three address notices of non-participation in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and among other things these orders ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office whether it will intervene in the appeals to defend the PTAB’s decisions. Two of the other nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmance, while two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders addressing the notices of non-participation in appeals, as well as links to the grants of summary affirmance and dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders, which were all dismissals. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In this case, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Veterans Court. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision denying a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The second nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a district court, which found that a patent claim is invalid based on indefiniteness. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders and two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Also, late yesterday the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order and one Rule 36 judgment. All the orders are dismissals. Here are the links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, one precedential order, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from judgments arising out of a bench trial in the Western District of Louisiana in a patent case.  The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable for obviousness. The precedential order, which attracted amicus attention and a dissent joined by four judges, denies a sua sponte request for rehearing en banc. Two of the orders transfer cases, and one dismisses a set of appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the precedential order and transfers, and link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal in a patent case involving a challenge to a claim construction and addresses the use of extrinsic evidence in consideration of the claim construction. The nonprecedential opinion addresses a petition for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the six orders, one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the remaining five orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissals.

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

• a blog post discussing the Solicitor General’s amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in a case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and
• an article highlighting takeaways from a recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit addressing analogousness of prior art references.

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

• an article commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi concerning patent law’s enablement requirement;
• an article highlighting the Biden administration urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in Apple v. Caltech, a case presenting a question about inter partes review estoppel;
• a post noting the effects of the Federal Circuit’s holding addressing inducement of infringement by so-called skinny labels in Teva v. GlaxoSmithKline after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case; and
• an article arguing the recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals addressing a limit on what qualifies as analogous prior art “adds to [the] toolbox for patentee prosecution and litigation success.”