FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new responses were filed. One responds to a petition raising questions related to infringement and claim construction in design patent cases. The other responds to a petition raising a question related to admissibility of expert testimony. Two new amicus briefs were also filed supporting a petition raising questions related to the domestic industry requirement at the International Trade Commission. Finally, the court denied two petitions in cases raising questions related to obviousness, apportionment, and eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, five new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to correction of inventorship, damages, the domestic industry requirement, and infringement. Three new amicus briefs were also filed in a case raising questions related to design patent infringement. Finally, four petitions were denied in cases raising questions related to eligibility and infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to eligibility and Article III standing; two amicus briefs were filed in case raising questions related to obviousness and apportionment of damages; a panel granted in part a petition for panel rehearing; and the court denied two petitions for en banc rehearing raising questions related to obviousness and another petition filed pro se. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post suggesting the “Federal Circuit’s tightening of the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of nonobviousness has become one of the most consequential doctrinal developments in patent law over the past decade”;
• an article reporting that “Big Tech companies and the lawyers who represent them are expressing disappointment that the nation’s top patent court is declining to rein in changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”
• a blog post highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit decision “underscores the critical importance of rigorously documenting inventorship, maintaining contact with all contributors, and proactively managing inventorship determinations before patent applications are filed”; and
• an article analyzing another recent Federal Circuit decision that found an “accused device to be plainly dissimilar” to a “claimed design . . . even though lay observers might initially see close visual similarity.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing were filed raising questions related to eligibility and design-patent infringement; the court issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising questions related to obviousness and apportionment of damages; and a response was filed to a petition raising questions related to obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied one petition for en banc rehearing in a Lanham Act case. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post reporting how Judge Newman “filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court” to review her suspension from exercising judicial duties at the Federal Circuit;
• an article arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an opportunity to confront doctrinal tensions in design patent law claim construction that have lingered for decades and intensified in recent years”;
• a blog post examining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed an “Examiner’s obviousness rejection after rejecting [a] narrow construction of the claim term ‘configured for’”; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay next steps in the fight over tariff refunds for importers.”’”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in a design patent case and includes a dissent by Chief Judge Moore. The other two opinions come in related matters, trade cases challenging decisions of the Court of International Trade. As for the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for remand while the others are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order granting remand, along with links the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.