FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 summary affirmances and two orders dismissing appeals. Here are links to judgments and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s denial of motions to terminate and its unpatentability determinations. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District for the District of Columbia Circuit; one summarily affirms; and two dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the third comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Notably, in the second patent case, Judge Newman dissented. Finally, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One grants an unopposed motion to dismiss an appeal; the other grants a joint motion to dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, this week the Court decided Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., in which the Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s approach to the assignor estoppel doctrine. Additionally, three cases were granted, vacated, and remanded based on the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. regarding application of the Appointments Clause to administrative patent judges. As for petition cases:

Here are the details.

• a reply brief was submitted in support of a petition in a government contract case;
• the government filed a waiver of right to respond in a patent case;
• the Court dismissed one petition; and
• the Court denied five petitions, including four regarding application of the Appointments Clause to administrative patent judges.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received the four new petitions for writs of certiorari in (1) Strand v. United States, (2) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corp., (3) HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., and (4) Martin v. Department of Homeland Security.
• Both the United States in Campbell v. United States and Ericsson, Inc. in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson submitted briefs in opposition to petitions.
• Two replies were submitted to the Court, the first by Andrea Lea in Lea v. United States and the second by Jake LaTurner in LaTurner v. United States.
• Five amicus briefs were filed in three cases: (1) United States v. Arthrex, Inc., (2) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., and (3) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) Blodgett v. United States, (2) United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC, and (3) Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc.
• The United States, Arthrex, Inc, and Smith & Nephew, Inc. filed related responses in the following petitions: (1) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., (2) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., (3) Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., and (4) United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• Only one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court this week in Morsa v. Iancu by Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The following five new petitions were submitted to the Court: (1) Primbas, et al. v. Iancu, (2) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., et al., (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., (4) Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., and (5) Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Also, in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Willowood, LLC submitted its reply to Syngenta’s brief in opposition. Willowood claims Syngenta’s brief avoids the key issues raised in the petition.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court received two waivers of right to respond for the petitions of Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank and Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in six cases raising questions relating to design patent claim construction, damages, claim construction, eligibility, inequitable conduct, non-obviousness, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; three requests for responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of six petitions raising issues including the Appointments Clause, claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and damages. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in seven cases raising questions related to the Administrative Procedure Act, obviousness, patent eligibility, and the Appointments Clause, and the denial of four petitions raising questions related to collateral estoppel and inter partes review, the Appointments Clause, and obviousness. Here are the details.