FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to the Federal Circuit’s review of the grant of a motion for attorneys’ fees. Additionally, the court invited a response to a petition raising questions regarding the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. Finally, the court denied a petition presenting a question regarding the effect of a remand overturning a holding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on which a patent owner relied in drafting amended claims. 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:

• an article discussing the legal battle between Judge Newman and “her fellow judges on the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who have tried to pressure her to step aside”;
• a blog post discussing a Federal Circuit opinion vacating an attorneys’ fees award in a patent case, an opinion authored by Western District of Texas Judge Alan Albright, who sat by designation;
• an article reporting on amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court “urging it to leave in place” a Federal Circuit decision regarding the application of the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine to patent term adjustments; and
• an article discussing a Federal Circuit opinion holding that patent law’s on-sale bar still applies to secret processes after the America Invents Act.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. The opinion vacates and remands an award of attorneys fees by the District of Colorado in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion and a nonprecedential opinion in two cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released five nonprecedential orders, which included three summary affirmances and two dismissals. Here are the introductions of the opinion and links to the orders.

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

• an article noting how a “[f]ederal judge sitting atop mound of patent litigation loses perch with equitable-distribution order”;
• another article addressing how “Netflix [won] attorneys’ fees for California litigation at Federal Circuit”;
• a third article discussing how an engineer filed an amicus brief critiquing a Federal Circuit decision that would allegedly “let federal agencies ‘cut corners’ and render public accountability ‘superfluous.’”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court, which awarded attorneys’ fees with respect to the underlying California action but not with respect to related proceedings in Delaware and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part from the panel’s judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and three Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, 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 a new petition raising a question related to indefiniteness. Additionally, the court received a response to a petition concerning the treatment of expert opinions. Lastly, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to the termination of inter partes review proceedings, jurisdiction, and enablement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In patent cases, the court received four new petitions this week, addressing issues of claim construction, the replacement of a primary prior art reference after institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the evaluation of patent eligibility, and contractual patent ownership. The court also received a response to a petition that raised a question related to the power of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to terminate an instituted proceeding on the eve of a merits-based final written decision. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. It was a busy week at the Federal Circuit. The court received two new petitions in cases addressing issues of enablement, eligibility, and personal jurisdiction. Additionally, the court invited responses in three cases addressing termination of inter partes review proceedings, evaluation of expert opinions on summary judgment, and competitor standing. The court also received a response to a petition raising a question related to enablement. Lastly, the court issued two new denials, one in a case concerning 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and another in a pro se case. Here are the details.