FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post arguing that “the Federal Circuit should release all dispositive orders on its website, not just decisions labeled as ‘opinions’ or summary affirmances under Rule 36”;
• an article discussing how “[p]atent owners are looking to past [forum selection clauses in] agreements they signed with the companies they are accusing of infringement to head off challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• another blog post discussing an opinion addressing whether “ATJs [Administrative Trademark Judges] [are] unconstitutionally appointed principal officers like their APJ cousins”; and
• an article observing “that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8–the rule setting forth the pleading standards applicable to civil actions in federal court–in patent cases is hard to reconcile with modern U.S. Supreme Court precedent on Rule 8.”

Recent Federal Circuit Developments in Patent Licensing – On PharmExec.com, Johnathan Harris, Heather Brady, and Drew Hiller have written an article concerning the Federal Circuit and “recent legal developments [that] can help companies avoid infringement.”

Federal Circuit: ‘Patentees Need Not Prove Their Case at the Pleading Stage’ – In her article on LawStreetMedia.com, Christina Tobacco wrote about an opinion recently issued by the Federal Circuit where the court “considered the stringency of pleading requirements in patent infringement cases.”

SCOTUS Decides Arthrex: Much Ado about Inter Partes Reviews – Aziz Burgy posted an article on BloombergLaw.com about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arthrex.

Court Ruling May Let Veterans Access Both Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits – Patricia Kime reported on Military.com about the Federal Circuit’s decision in Rudisill v. McDonough and how it “could require the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay veterans an additional year of education benefits under both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.”

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

• After receiving three petitions last week, the Supreme Court received yet another petition from Lakshmi Arunachalam in Lakshmi Arunachalam, Petitioner v. SAP America, Inc.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the petitioner submitted its reply to the Court, denouncing the claims made by the respondent and further advocating for their writ to be granted.
• Finally, the Supreme Court denied a total of eight different petitions this week, among that group of denied petitions are cases like Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp. and Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission. For the full list of denied petitions, see the list below.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition filed in a case raising questions related to standing; a new invitation for responses to petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel as well as a new amicus brief in the same case; the denial of petitions in five cases raising questions related to claim construction, persons who may petition for post-issuance review proceedings, jurisdiction, and non-obviousness; and the grant of a motion to withdraw in a case raising questions related to vitiation. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in four cases raising questions related to claim construction, persons who may petition for post-issuance review proceedings, and jurisdiction; three new responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of petitions in six cases raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, non-obviousness, and eligibility. Here are the details

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in six cases raising questions relating to design patent claim construction, damages, claim construction, eligibility, inequitable conduct, non-obviousness, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; three requests for responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of six petitions raising issues including the Appointments Clause, claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and damages. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in four cases raising questions relating to patent eligibility, the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and non-obviousness; one new response to a pending petition raising questions related to enablement, written description, and the 7th Amendment; and the denial of ten petitions raising issues including the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and implied licenses. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There is no news to report on granted cases and no new petitions were filed. However, four new reply briefs in support of petitions were filed, and the Supreme Court did deny four previously-filed petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential order denying en banc rehearing in a patent case, as well as one nonprecedential opinion in another patent case. Both included dissents. Here is the text of the order and the introduction to the opinion along with language from the dissents.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a granted application to stay the Federal Circuit’s mandate to allow the prospective petitioner to challenge the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that it had waived the argument that succeeded in Arthrex, two new petitions including one related to the exhaustion doctrine and design patents, and several responses to petitions. Here are the details.