FedCircuitBlog

Guest Post by Greg Reilly

For over a decade, patent litigation has been surprisingly concentrated in a single federal district court. At one time, almost half of the nation’s patent litigation occurred in small towns in eastern Texas.1 Now, 20% of patent litigation occurs before a single judge based in Waco, Texas.2 This concentration of patent litigation is not the result of the inherent characteristics of these districts but instead of the affirmative efforts of particular judges to attract patent cases to their courthouses.3 Scholarly commentary of this forum selling and patent litigation concentration, including by myself, has been largely critical.4 The primary objection is that the districts and judges competing for patent litigation improperly skew procedures in favor of the patentees who make the forum choice.5

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Recently the Federal Circuit granted en banc review in one veterans case, and last week the en banc court heard oral argument in another veterans case. As for petitions for en banc review in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction. The court also received three new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and the written description requirement. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Last week the court granted en banc reharing in a veteran’s case, and tomorrow the en banc court will hear oral argument in another veteran’s case. As for patent cases, the court received two new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause and the written description requirement, and the court invited a response to a petition raising questions related to conflicts of interest and due process. Finally, in another patent case the court received a new amicus brief supporting a petition raising a question related to claim construction. 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 recently the “Federal Circuit underscore[d] [the] importance of [patent law’s] written description requirement”;
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit “threw out a jury verdict ordering Apple Inc and Broadcom Inc to pay $1.1 billion to the California Institute of Technology” in a patent case;
• another another article assessing how the Federal Circuit “upheld a Michigan judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction” in a patent case; and
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “improperly relied on applicant admitted prior art” in an inter partes review proceeding.

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 claim construction, conflict of interest, due process, inducement of infringement, and an evidentiary rule. The court invited a response to a petition raising questions related to the written description requirement. In the same case, the court received three new amicus briefs supporting rehearing. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to the written description requirement. The court also received a new response to a different petition also raising a question related to the written description requirement. In addition, the court denied a petition for hearing en banc raising a question related to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of petitions for inter partes review. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order, all in patent disputes involving Sanofi-Aventis and Mylan entities originating in either federal district court or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of West Virginia. In the opinion, based on a changed claim construction the court vacated a judgment of noninfringement, but the court also affirmed a determination of nonobviousness. Judge Taranto dissented in part based on disagreement with the Federal Circuit’s claim construction. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and another nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released opinions in two related patent cases, one a precedential opinion and one a nonprecedential opinion. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Northern District of West Virginia that certain claims are invalid for lack of written description. Judge O’Malley dissented. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review addressing the same patent. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s trend of “directing Judge Alan Albright . . . to transfer a case to the Northern District of California”;
• a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of ineligibility for claims directed to a computer authentication method”;
• an article assessing how the Federal Circuit “[a]ddress[ed] venue in the context of a Hatch-Waxman case” and “explained that sending a paragraph IV notice letter to a company in the district is insufficient to establish venue”; and
• another article discussing a Federal Circuit ruling in a government contract case.