FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two responses to petitions raising questions related to anticipation and the standard for establishing venue. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a two new petitions. One raises a question related to the standard for establishing venue, and the other raises three questions related to claim construction at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to anticipation. Finally, the court also denied a petition in a case raising a question related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to anticipation and two responses to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. The court also denied three petitions raising questions related the standard for an award of attorneys’ fees, inter partes review estoppel, and assignor estoppel. Here are the details.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One vacates a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on the absence of a live controversy; one summarily affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims; and one dismisses an appeal from a federal district court for failure to prosecute. Here is text from the orders and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in two patent cases related to so-called skinny labelling and eligibility, respectively; a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement; a reply brief was submitted in a veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; and, finally, the Court denied more than 20 petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s holding that the petitioner failed to show that certain claims were anticipated or would have been obvious at the time the invention was made. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, a brief in opposition and a reply brief were submitted in two patent cases raising questions related to patent law’s written description requirement. The government also waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a tax case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court by a pro se petitioner, and a brief in opposition was submitted in a patent case related to the written description requirement. 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, ”[i]f cert is granted, this [patent] case will ask the nation’s highest court to clarify the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112”;
• another article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently ruled that inventions were unpatentable “[b]ecause the ‘patents are directed to a natural law together with conventional steps to detect or quantify the manifestation of that law’”; and
• a third article addressing how “[t]he Federal Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision backing a jury’s noninfringement finding in a patent suit against Amazon over diaper-monitoring technology.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to granted cases, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed its merits brief in Arellano v. McDonough. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a patent case, one in a case addressing the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, and two in pro se cases; seven amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitions in two patent cases addressing the written description requirement; and the Court dismissed a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.