FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions. Two arose from appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, and one from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments and two more dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court received a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility. The court also issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising a question regarding Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the relevant patent has already expired. The court has also recently denied two petitions. The first denied petition raised a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can form the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. The second denied petition raised questions concerning expert testimony to prove infringement of a means plus function element, claim construction, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware. Here is an introduction to the opinion and link to the order. 

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, three new petitions have been filed, and two previously filed petitions have been denied. The first new petition raises a question related to Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the patent has already expired; the second raises a question regarding whether a court can rule on a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of a patent after ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing; and the third raises a question concerning collateral estoppel related to a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The two denied petitions came in a pro se case and in an appeal related to obviousness. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court has denied three petitions for en banc rehearing. These petitions raised questions concerning the substantial evidence standard for review of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the test for analogous prior art, after-arising technologies, the written description and enablement requirements, and waiver of alternative grounds for affirmance. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Two new petitions have been filed. One raises questions concerning an appeal related to obviousness, and the other comes in a pro se case. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition raising questions concerning after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements. The court also denied two petitions, one concerning what patents should be listed in the Orange Book and the other concerning the burden of proof regarding enablement in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court scheduled oral argument in one of the court’s two en banc cases. As for pending petitions for en banc rehearing, an amicus brief was filed in support of a petition raising a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements, and the court denied a pro se litigant’s petition. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Two new petitions have been filed. One raises questions related the substantial evidence standard for review of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the test for analogous art. The other raises a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition raising a question related to what patents must be listed in the Orange Book, along with three new amicus briefs supporting the petition in that same case. 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 predicting that Howard Lutnick will “soon be confirmed by the Senate to be the next Secretary of Commerce”;
• a piece discussing how several companies filed an amicus brief challenging jury instructions in a Texas case, telling the Federal Circuit the instructions “‘lower the standard for patent eligibility’”;
• a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit “has reversed a controversial . . . decision that had invalidated composition of matter claims as abstract ideas”; and
• a report covering how “MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. urged the Federal Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel’s January ruling that revived a patent for Novartis AG’s blockbuster heart-disease drug Entresto.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Petitioners filed three new petitions, one presenting a question regarding waiver of alternative grounds for affirmance, one presenting a question regarding the burden of proving non-enablement in an inter partes review proceeding, and one presenting a question regarding injunctive relief pending a mandate. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising a question regarding the listing of patents in the Orange Book. Finally, a response was filed to the petition raising a question regarding injunctive relief pending a mandate. Here are the details.