FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision that “an Italian company can’t register a ‘Parma Coffee’ trademark because it primarily refers to a product’s point of origin”;
• another article addressing how Apple called the Solicitor General’s brief a “‘regrettable disregard’ of high court precedent” in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.; and
• a third article explaining how the Federal Circuit decided a “Delaware federal judge misconstrued part of UMass’ skin-cream patents when it found them invalid last year.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petition cases, three new petitions were filed with the Court; a reply brief was filed in a case raising questions related to patent eligibility; and four supplemental briefs were submitted in three patent cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review. The court also denied a recent motion for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court denied a petition raising a question related to transfers of cases. Notably, all three of these cases involved Apple Inc. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to cases with pending petitions, one new petition was filed by a pro se petitioner; the government filed a waiver of right to respond in another case submitted by a pro se petitioner; and another pro se petitioner submitted his reply brief. Finally, the government submitted the views of the United States in two patent cases: one raising questions about eligibility and another raising a question about standing. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed the government’s opening brief. As for pending petitions, the United States motioned for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause; the court invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations in patent claims; the court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings; and the court received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in one of the petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in a patent case, one filed by a pro se petitioner in a veterans case, and one by another pro se petitioner in an employment case. Additionally, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case raising questions concerning patent eligibility; a brief in opposition was filed in another patent eligibility case; a waiver of a right to respond was filed in a patent case concerning standing; and a petitioner filed a reply in a case raising a question about the Chevron doctrine’s applicability in veterans cases. Finally, the Court denied three petitions: two in takings cases and one in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising a question related to collateral estoppel between patent infringement actions and determinations of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed its merits brief in George v. McDonough, which concerns the scope of clear and unmistakable error in the context of veterans’ claims. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a case presenting a question related to Article III standing for patent licensees; a brief in opposition was submitted in a case raising questions related to patent eligibility; and reply briefs were filed in two patent cases: one raising questions related to inter partes review and one raising questions concerning enablement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. The opinion reversed a finding of invalidity. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in the fourth case, Judge Prost wrote a concurring opinion to explain that had a patentability challenge been preserved it likely would have succeeded. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders concerning, respectively, a dismissal for failure to prosecute and two voluntary dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received four new petitions raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings, motivation to combine prior art references, and the presumption of nexus in a non-obviousness analysis. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and a response to a motion to expedite issuance of the mandate in a case raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. The court also invited a response to the petition already mentioned that raised a question related to motivation to combine prior art references. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. Here are the details.