FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post discussing a recently filed petition for a writ of certiorari of a “May 2023 decision by the Federal Circuit that invalidated claims . . . covering method of treating Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder”;
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling “that a Georgia inventor’s car remote-starter patent that his company alleges was infringed by BMW AG is invalid in light of two previously published inventions”; and
• an article about how the Federal Circuit “denied Charles Bertini’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to decide his trademark cancellation case against Apple, Inc.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. One of the precedential opinions addresses an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The other precedential opinion, which was previously released as a nonprecedential opinion, addresses an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Two of the nonprecedential opinions address appeals in patent cases—one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and another from a district court. The third nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, ultimately finding a lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the fourth nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief and the court scheduled the oral argument to occur in February. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. As for petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received two new petitions raising questions relating to the standard for enhanced damages and the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. The court also received responses to two petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to the interpretation of a forum selection clause, a writ of mandamus, and comparable licenses and royalty calculations, and another petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions, one raising a question related to comparable licenses and royalty calculations and another raising a question related to the written description requirement. The court received three more amicus briefs in support of rehearing en banc in a case that raises questions concerning the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman amendments. Finally, the court denied three petitions for rehearing en banc, one raising a question related to writs of mandamus and two raising the same questions related to patent eligibility. 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 blog post discussing how, “in many IP cases involving foreign defendants,” circumventing Article 5 of the Hague Convention may provide a “sense of victory [that] might be premature”;
• an article addressing “whether portfolio patent licenses can be sufficiently comparable to a single-patent license for the purposes of supporting a patent damages verdict”;
• another blog post detailing the Federal Circuit’s clarification of “the distinction between conduct warranting enhanced damages and the lesser standard of willful infringement”; and
• a report about how the Federal Circuit “revived a military security contractor’s bid for reimbursement of a penalty charged by Afghanistan’s government.”

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

• a blog post discussing the exclusion of expert testimony related to patent damages;
• an article indicating that recent Federal Circuit opinions have created “a blueprint for companies that want to get cases moved out of the nation’s fledgling patent-dispute hotbed”; and
• a report on the outcome of one of Apple’s challenges to patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.