FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and the Appointments Clause. The court also invited a response to a petition that raised questions related to the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the assignment of patents. 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 for rehearing en banc raising questions related to inter partes review estoppel and notice required to collect damages for infringement. The court also received three new responses to petitions that raised questions related to the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding, the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order transfer, and the assignment of patents. The court received four amicus briefs in cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding, patent eligibility, and the assignment of patents. Finally, the court denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to the weight given to expert witness testimony during claim construction and the non-obviousness 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:

• a blog post detailing how in a patent case the Federal Circuit “affirmed a district court’s finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285” based on inequitable conduct;
• another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the “potential for decision maker bias to occur”;
• a report explaining the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of “a Texas federal court’s decision to clear HP and other companies . . . of infringing several printing patents” and an “attorney fee order”; and
• an article assessing how Apple “won . . . support . . . for its effort to get the Federal Circuit to rehear [a patent] ownership dispute.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to assignments of patents and the non-obviousness requirement. The court also invited responses to petitions in two cases concerning the standard of review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions and assignments of patents. Lastly, the court denied a petition for rehearing en banc in a case raising questions related to Appointments Clause challenges with respect to Administrative Patent Judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

On August 2 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Linn, and Chen. Judge Linn authored the majority opinion affirming the district court, and Judge Newman dissented. The opinions relate to the doctrine of standing and the proper interpretation of the bylaws of the University of Michigan as they relate to ownership of intellectual property. This is our opinion summary. 

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight six dispositions, one new case, one case with new briefing, and one oral argument recap. Here are the details.

Apple Must Face Apple Watch Patent Claims, Fed Circ. Affirms – Blake Brittain posted an article on Reuters.com about how Apple “lost its bid to escape patent infringement claims over its Apple Watch technology . . . at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

Teva’s Generic Label Not Skinny Enough to Protect from $234M Damages to GSK – In an article written by Khadijah M. Silver on MedCityNews.com, Silver reports that the Federal Circuit issued a “controversial” decision about Teva’s “skinny label.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent infringement case, affirming a denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing over a dissent by Judge Newman. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to transfer a case to the Central District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions, one new case with an amicus brief, one case with new briefing, one case update, three recent oral arguments, and two upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.