This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim; a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and a nonprecedential order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the court issued an order transferring a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Eleventh Circuit. Finally, the court issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions of the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions, one new patent case, and new briefing in another patent case. Here are the details.
- Federal Circuit Sheds Light on the Test for ‘Analogous Art’ in an IPR – Tom BenGera discusses the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion in Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC.
- Covered Business Method Threshold Review Is Not Appealable – The Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that a patent qualifies for covered business method (CBM) review is not appealable.
Here’s the latest.
- Printed Matter Is Patentable If It’s Functional, Not Just Communicative – Bard’s suit of patent infringement by AngioDynamics may continue after the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s finding of non-infringement and invalidity.
- Functional claiming in the aftermath of Williamson – Analyses of means plus function limitations have shifted more than anticipated in the past few years following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC.
- Federal Circuit Considers CBM Review Under Thryv on Remand from SCOTUS – The Federal Circuit affirmed in SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric that the decision to institute a covered business method (“CBM”) review cannot be reviewed based on Supreme Court precedent.
Here’s the latest.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, the court issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- The Supreme Court received six new petitions this week in (1) BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., (2) Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., (3) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank., (4) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al., (5) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and (6) Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
- In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast submitted its reply to the ITC’s brief in opposition.
- Finally, the State of Indiana submitted identical amicus briefs in favor of the petitioners in both Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States.
Here are the details.
This post summarizes the recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- The Supreme Court received responses for the following five petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission, and (5) Ford Motor Co. v. United States.
- The Supreme Court received replies in the four following petitions: (1) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., (3) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., and (4) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
- In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., Baxter International filed an amicus brief in favor of the respondent.
Here are the details.