FedCircuitBlog

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This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order, all in patent disputes involving Sanofi-Aventis and Mylan entities originating in either federal district court or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.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 The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and another nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case.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This morning the Federal Circuit released opinions in two related patent cases, one a precedential opinion and one a nonprecedential opinion.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 In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review addressing the same patent.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.

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 Judge Albright “said the Federal Circuit’s rulings had ‘muddled what facts are relevant’ in determining which court can hear the case faster”;
• a blog post addressing the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that “[a] design [patent] claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim”;
• another article detailing how in an opposition to a trademark “an opposer cannot show standing by merely showing the registrant competes with the opposer and receives a benefit from an unlawful trademark”; and
• another post explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit brought some measure of clarity to the question [of proper venue] recently when it affirmed a District Court dismissal of an ANDA action on improper venue grounds.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case, affirming the District of New Jersey’s judgment that the plaintiff did not establish proper venue under the patent venue statute with respect to the named domestic defendants and did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted with respect to the named foreign defendant. The Federal Circuit also released five Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Guest Post by Kristen Osenga

In any given year, the Federal Circuit covers a wide spectrum of issues in patent law, and 2020 was no different. Of course, a lot about 2020 was different — including seeing the Court hold (and now livestream) telephonic arguments — but most of the patent cases decided were similar in type to other years . . . a little patent-eligible subject matter, a little jurisdiction and venue, a case about infringement of standard essential patents, and a bit of deciding what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can and cannot do. There were no real blockbuster cases in 2020 (other than maybe the Arthrex denial of rehearing, more on that later). This could be due to the pandemic, or maybe it is a sign that patent law is settling in for a bit. Of course, that does not mean the law has settled in the right place, but that is a different issue for a different day.

For today, a few cases are worth highlighting from the Federal Circuit’s 2020 patent opinions. To be clear, this is not an exhaustive review, but rather simply a short selection noting some of the more important patent cases decided last year.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court will hear oral argument tomorrow in a veterans case. As for patent cases, highlights include new petitions questions related to inter partes review, enablement, and eligible subject matter; a new response to a petition raising questions related to the intersection of inducement of infringement and Hatch-Waxman; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to eligible subject matter, enablement, the intersection of venue and Hatch-Waxman, and the presumption of validity. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court scheduled oral argument in a en banc veterans case. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. Highlights in pending en banc petitions in patent cases include a new petition raising questions related to enablement and claim construction; a petition and an invitation for response in a case raising a question related to injunctive relief; a response to a petition raising a question related to venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and denials of four petitions raising questions related to intervention in inter partes review, claim construction, and due process. Here are the details.