FedCircuitBlog

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 recently “the Federal Circuit denied a petition for mandamus relief from an order transferring a first-filed declaratory judgment action”;
• another article explaining how “AstraZeneca has urged the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to revisit a split panel decision”;
• another article detailing how a “Federal Circuit judge said Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court justices created ‘a trap for the unwary’ by keeping alive a doctrine barring inventors from challenging the validity of their own patents”; and
• yet another article assessing how the Federal Circuit recently “address[ed] [the] ‘abuse of authority’ standard under [federal] whistleblower law.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order, all in patent disputes involving Sanofi-Aventis and Mylan entities originating in either federal district court or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.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

• GI Bill Ruling Won’t Come in Time for Fall Classes – Veteran students deprived of GI Bill benefits needed for the Fall semester while waiting for Federal Circuit input.
• Prior Work Can Lead to Joint Inventorship – Work by co-inventors performed independently and publicly disclosed prior to the conception of the claimed invention can constitute joint inventorship.
• Federal Circuit Won’t Revisit Relistor Ruling – Valeant failed to persuade the Federal Circuit to revisit their obviousness decision in Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Here’s the latest.

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

• The following five new petitions were submitted to the Court: (1) Primbas, et al. v. Iancu, (2) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., et al., (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., (4) Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., and (5) Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Also, in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Willowood, LLC submitted its reply to Syngenta’s brief in opposition. Willowood claims Syngenta’s brief avoids the key issues raised in the petition.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court received two waivers of right to respond for the petitions of Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank and Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al.

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 a news report on the Supreme Court temporarily staying a Federal Circuit mandate, a New York Times article discussing a recent denial of en banc rehearing, and comments by former Chief Judge Paul Michel on the Federal Circuit’s obviousness standard.

This week the Federal Circuit will hold 11 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 41 cases. Notable cases include Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. EMC Corp., and Keith Manufacturing Co. v. Butterfield.

A pharmaceutical patent case being argued next week involves Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (“Sanofi”) and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”). This case presents two related issues on the subject of the law of obviousness: (1) whether “obviousness may be shown even when the prior art did not ‘expressly articulate’ or even implicitly ‘suggest’” a modification to the prior art, and (2) whether “the teachings of the challenged patents-in-suit, rather than the prior art,” are sufficient to show that a person of skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had a reason to modify the prior art.”