FedCircuitBlog

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.”

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

• an article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit is poised to provide guidance in the coming year on two patent law issues that have befuddled district courts”;
• another article detailing how “the Federal Circuit (CAFC) . . . affirmed a district court’s ruling that Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 is not invalid” over a dissent by Chief Judge Moore;
• an article detailing how the Federal Circuit “denied Cisco’s bid to rehear a panel decision reinstating a $57 million enhanced damages award against . . . SRI International Inc. over cybersecurity patents”; and
• another article noting that the Federal Circuit “was the first federal appeals court to announce a switch to remote oral arguments for its January session in response to the spike in COVID-19 cases.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. The court also issued an erratum for the precedential opinion the court released yesterday. Here are the links to the Rule 36 judgments and the erratum.   

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The opinion addresses whether the district court erred in finding that a patent did not fail patent law’s written description requirement. Notably, Chief Judge Moore filed a dissenting opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinion and dissent.

• Patent Appeal Lessons From Fed. Circ. Remote En Banc Args – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has sat remotely en banc for only two cases in the past year, both of which have been veterans cases, but their oral arguments can provide insight to all practitioners.
• Novartis Patent on MS Drug Gilenya Evades Supreme Court Scrutiny – The Supreme Court will not explore the debate over whether being in regular competition is enough to challenge a PTAB ruling on a rival’s patent without having been sued for infringement.  
• Fourth Circuit Finds ‘Pretzel Crisps’ Plaintiffs are Not Bound to Federal Circuit Across Appeals from Distinct TTAB Decisions – The Fourth Circuit joins the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in considering the reach of the Lanham Act’s permission to seek review of a TTAB decision at either the CAFC or in federal district court.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received four new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new response briefs were filed with the Court. Two in Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC and one in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited.
• Two new amicus briefs were filed with the Court in Sellers v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the first by the National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium and the second by the Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc.
• One letter to Justice Barrett was filed with the Court by counsel for Sasso in Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Sasso, notifying Justice Barrett of a potential conflict of interest.
• Two waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions in two cases: (1) Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and (2) Wynkoop v. Department of Defense.

Here are the details.