FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions in two cases raising questions related to the presumption of validity, motions for attorneys fees, and the propriety of Rule 36 judgments in cases appealed from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; a new response to a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility; a new amicus brief in a case raising questions related to venue and Hatch-Waxman; and the denial of a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Telephonic oral argument was scheduled in the veterans case pending before the en banc court. As for petitions in patent cases, highlights include two new petitions raising questions related to transfer of venue and eligible subject matter; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising a question related to venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and three amicus briefs filed in support of a petitioner in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. We have activity to report in both of the court’s two pending en banc veterans cases: a unanimous opinion in one and the filing of the appellant’s reply brief in the other. In patent cases with petitions for en banc rehearing, six new petitions have been filed raising questions related to patent eligibility, claim construction, due process, inducement of infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman, and venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman. The court has also issued invitations for responses to petitions in two cases raising questions related to patent eligibility and intervention. And the court has denied three petitions raising questions related to obviousness, infringement and claim construction. Here are the details.

• Big Pharma to Face Off at Federal Circuit Oral Arguments Over Antibody Genus Patentability – A preview of an upcoming Federal Circuit case concerning enablement.
• No Patent? No Problem! The Federal Circuit Paves The Way For Non-Patent Owners To Sue Infringers – What happens in a patent lawsuit when not all of the parties that have an ownership interest in a patent are joined as plaintiffs?
• The Federal Circuit Tries To Demystify Venue in Hatch-Waxman Actions – In Valeant Pharms. N. Am. v. Mylan Pharms., the Federal Circuit attempted to clarify where “acts of infringement” for venue purposes under §1400(b) occur in Hatch-Waxman actions.

Here’s the latest.

• Investors Eye Patents After ‘Extraordinary’ Damage Awards Run – The past year has seen several large damages awards in patent infringement cases but the Federal Circuit has overturned some of the larger awards.
• Federal Circuit Limits Venue for Hatch-Waxman Cases – The Federal Circuit ruled that venue was only proper in judicial districts sufficiently related to the submission of an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) and not where a generic drug could be distributed.
• Fed. Circ. Mulls Fate Of Wi-Fi Co.’s $8M Infringement Verdict – Oral arguments before the Federal Circuit took place on Friday for SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Ltd. reviewing a jury verdict of uCloudlink’s willful infringement.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a trade case, and a veterans case. The court also issued a nonprecedential erratum and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the erratum, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case. The Federal Circuit also issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Mantissa Corp. v. Ondot Systems, Inc., (2) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and (3) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.
• Three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Actavis in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., the second by CBS in Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., and the third by Biomarin in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 19 different petitions this week.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week in (1) Vilox Technologies, LLC v. Iancu, (2) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and (3) Drevaleva v. United States.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court by Taser in Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court by Sanofi-Aventis in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Lastly, one waiver of right to respond to the petition in Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. was filed with the Court by Dish Network.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Michelson v. Department of the Army and Sanders v. United States.
• Mylan submitted its brief in opposition to the Court in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc..
• Finally, one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court in Martin v. Department of Homeland Security by the Department of Homeland Security.

Here are the details.