FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to the written description requirement. The court also received two amicus briefs supporting rehearing in the same case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the government filed its en banc reply brief. The court also received a new petition in a case raising a question related to the written description requirement. Here are the details.

Last week, we reported that the Federal Circuit issued a relatively rare opinion granting panel rehearing in a patent case, Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. In the original, now-vacated opinion, a panel comprised of Judges O’Malley and Linn, with Chief Judge Moore dissenting, indicated the court would affirm a district court’s judgment that claims are not invalid for inadequate written description. Notably, however, a different panel ruled on the motion for panel rehearing. In particular, with Judge O’Malley’s retirement from the court, Judge Hughes joined the panel. The new panel, and in particular Chief Judge Moore (no longer dissenting) and Judge Hughes, with Judge Linn now dissenting, granted the petition for panel rehearing, vacated the panel’s prior decision, and, in the new opinion, now reverse the district court’s judgment. Perhaps most importantly, the changed outcome reflects a difference of view regarding application of the written description requirement. Here is an update on the case.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article highlighting how the Supreme Court yesterday denied Apple’s petition for writ of certiorari in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.;
• another article discussing how “two cases signal that the Federal Circuit and district courts are moving toward explicitly recognizing that parties to a mandatory arbitration clause can bargain away the right to file for inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”; and
• a blog post addressing how a flip in a recent Federal Circuit decision “appears to be the consequence of a change in panel composition.”

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 “[a]n unusual Federal Circuit decision has given generic drugmakers a new way to successfully challenge pharmaceutical patents with specific types of claims”;
• another article explaining how “the broader context of [Thaler v. Vidal] can provide strategic guidance for future AI litigation matters”; and
• a third article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a “$2.75 [billion] damages award because [the] judge’s wife owned stock.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied two petitions for rehearing raising questions related to the Appointments Clause and the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review. The court also granted panel rehearing but denied as moot rehearing en banc in response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, granting a petition for panel rehearing, vacating the Federal Circuit’s prior decision, and reversing the district court’s judgment that claims were not invalid for violating the written description requirement. Notably, Judge Linn dissented. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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 assignments of patents and standing and a new response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. The court also requested a reply from a petitioner in support of its combined petition, which raised questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court denied two petition raising questions related to the standard of review for a grant or denial of a preliminary injunction and claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court ordered a stay in the proceedings in a veteran’s case. As for patent cases, the court received a new petition raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. The court also invited a response to the same petition. Finally, the court granted panel rehearing but denied rehearing en banc in response to a petition raising questions related to an alleged conflict of interest and summary affirmances. 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 detailing how “[t]hree judges of the Federal Circuit wrestled at oral argument with whether a trial court properly prevented publication of a patent application . . .”;
• another article discussing the Federal Circuit’s affirmation of a “district court’s finding that a patent claim does not fail the written description requirement merely because the specification fails to explicitly state a negative claim limitation”;
• another article detailing how the Federal Circuit has considered whether “USPTO reexam estoppel orders [are] appealable”; and
• yet another article stating that the Federal Circuit would hear a case “that threatens the statutory presumption afforded copyright registration.”