FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released related precedential and nonprecedential opinions addressing parallel appeals from judgments of a district court and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to the same patents. In the precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacates a district court’s judgment of willful infringement and remands with instructions to dismiss the case as moot given the Federal Circuit’s holding in the related nonprecedential opinion affirming final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding all of the asserted claims invalid. The Federal Circuit also released another precedential opinion reversing a district court’s finding of lack of personal jurisdiction in another patent infringement dispute. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a second nonprecedential opinion, this one in a separate appeal from another final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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.

• Patenting Software-Related Inventions Is Getting Easier – Experts analyze Federal Circuit precedent and USPTO guidance to advance two recommendations for IP practitioners with regard to ensuring patent eligibility of inventions directed to software-related technologies.
• CAFC Reverses In-Part, Vacates In-Part PTAB Patentability Finding for Skin Cancer Detection Device – The Federal Circuit used an obviousness analysis and ruled that the PTAB erred in holding that patent claims directed at a skin cancer detection device were patentable.
• Federal Circuit Affirms District Court Decision Blocking Poultry Chiller Patent Suit Due to Equitable Intervening Rights – For the first time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the “boundaries of the phrase ‘protection of investments’ in [35 U.S.C.] § 252”, which outlines the effect of reissued patents.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In one of the two pending en banc veterans cases, the Court invited the National Organization of Veterans Advocates to file an amended petition. In the other case, two amicus briefs were filed. With respect to petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases, highlights include a new invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to literal infringement and claim construction; a new amicus brief filed in a case raising questions related to prosecution history estoppel, vitiation, and reasonable royalties; and the denial of two petitions in cases raising questions related to patent marking, expert testimony, willful infringement, and inventorship. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In one of the two pending en banc cases addressing veterans law, the court requested the parties file supplemental briefs to address concerns with Article III standing. Other updates include new petitions raising questions related to patent marking, expert testimony, willful infringement, and sanctions; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising a question related to remedies; a new amicus brief in a case raising a question related to double-patenting; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and claim construction. Here are the details.

• Sweat the Small Stuff: Lessons of Federal Circuit Damages Cases – Marking, interest accrual, and awards calculation have been important issues in six Federal Circuit decisions on patent damages, but the Federal Circuit has been reluctant to overturn jury awards in other damages cases.
• Standard Essentiality is a Question for the Fact Finder – Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communications Technology Holdings that the trier of fact should determine whether patent claims are essential to all implementations of an industry standard.
• The Little Tucker Act is Alive and Well – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States reaffirms to plaintiffs with small non-tort claims against the United States that they can file either in the Court of Federal Claims or in a local district court.

Here’s the latest.

• Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Eligibility Analysis – In Packet Intelligence, LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., the court held NetScout willfully infringed Packet Intelligence’s patents, rejecting NetScout’s argument that the patents were directed toward an abstract idea.
• Nike and Adidas Escape Patent Claims Over Athletic-Shoe Soles – According to a Federal Circuit decision on July 16, the shoe companies did not infringe Akeva’s wear-reducing patent because the companies’ shoes do not have detachable soles.
• Patent invalidity claim is no cure for ITC’s import ban on grippy mugs – On July 16, the Federal Circuit ruled that a party cannot challenge a general ITC exclusion order barring importation of products for infringing a patent by claiming the patent is invalid.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.