FedCircuitBlog

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

• The Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Mantissa Corp. v. Ondot Systems, Inc., (2) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and (3) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.
• Three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Actavis in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., the second by CBS in Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., and the third by Biomarin in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 19 different petitions this week.

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 this week in (1) Vilox Technologies, LLC v. Iancu, (2) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and (3) Drevaleva v. United States.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court by Taser in Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court by Sanofi-Aventis in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Lastly, one waiver of right to respond to the petition in Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. was filed with the Court by Dish Network.

Here are the details.

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

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Michelson v. Department of the Army and Sanders v. United States.
• Mylan submitted its brief in opposition to the Court in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc..
• Finally, one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court in Martin v. Department of Homeland Security by the Department of Homeland Security.

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 one new petition related to obviousness, one response to a petition related to design patents, two requests for responses to petitions related to Arthrex and transfer, two amicus briefs in support of petitions related to the written description and enablement requirements, and the denial of one petition related to Arthrex and obviousness. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions related to waiver of the prevailing arguments made in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., non-obviousness, and argument-type prosecution history estoppel, two letters filed by the government in response to arguments related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two amicus briefs in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. itself, and the denial of four petitions. We have the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal of discipline levied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and a nonprecedential erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.