FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner filed his opening merits brief in Arellano v. McDonough, a case that raises questions regarding equitable tolling and retroactive disability benefits. As for cases with pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a veterans case; following a Supreme Court request in January, the government submitted the view of the United States in a patent case that raises a question related to the intersection of the Seventh Amendment and claim construction on appeal; and a brief in opposition was filed in an employment case concerning differential pay for federal employees serving on active duty. Finally, the Court denied petitions in three patent cases.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in George v. McDonough, a case addressing veterans law. While no new petitions have been filed, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a case concerning patent law’s enablement requirement. Additionally, two waivers of right to respond and a reply brief were filed in other patent cases. Moreover, two amicus briefs were submitted this past week: one in a patent case raising questions related to enhanced damages and one in a veterans case involving the Equal Access to Justice Act. Finally, the Court denied certiorari in two cases brought by pro se petitioners. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in an Equal Access to Justice Act case and two in patent cases raising questions related to eligibility and enhanced damages; members of Congress filed an amicus brief in an employment law case that involves interpretation of the Reservists Pay Security Act; the government submitted a brief in opposition in a case concerning the Tucker Act and another brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the non-obviousness requirement; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied review in four cases. 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 explaining how “Zaxcom has petitioned the court for rehearing en banc, arguing that the CAFC’s precedent . . . ‘confused the law’ regarding a rebuttable presumption of nexus”;
• another article discussing how “[a] split US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that US chemical company BASF is able to be sued” for alleged infringement; and
• a blog post discussing how, “[i]n a new petition for writ of certiorari, Cisco asks for guidance on whether enhanced damages under Section 284 require ‘egregious infringement behavior’ or instead is it enough to find ‘deliberate or intentional infringement.’”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update the court denied a petition that raised a question related to the standard for enhanced damages. That’s it. 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 explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit is poised to provide guidance in the coming year on two patent law issues that have befuddled district courts”;
• another article detailing how “the Federal Circuit (CAFC) . . . affirmed a district court’s ruling that Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 is not invalid” over a dissent by Chief Judge Moore;
• an article detailing how the Federal Circuit “denied Cisco’s bid to rehear a panel decision reinstating a $57 million enhanced damages award against . . . SRI International Inc. over cybersecurity patents”; and
• another article noting that the Federal Circuit “was the first federal appeals court to announce a switch to remote oral arguments for its January session in response to the spike in COVID-19 cases.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new amicus brief supporting rehearing in a case that raises a question related to the standard for enhanced damages. The court also denied a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief and the court scheduled the oral argument to occur in February. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. As for petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received two new petitions raising questions relating to the standard for enhanced damages and the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. The court also received responses to two petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to the interpretation of a forum selection clause, a writ of mandamus, and comparable licenses and royalty calculations, and another petition in a pro se case. 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 detailing the Federal Circuit’s grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus “[i]n its latest rebuke of Judge Alan Albright’s approach to motions to transfer cases out of his court”;
• another article focusing on how the Federal Circuit ruled that a “suit alleging that a Fujifilm subsidiary infringed its patent on an interface for digital mammography” may proceed;
• a blog post discussing how “[w]illful patent infringement can result in enhanced, and in some case treble, damages but not in every instance”; and
• another article noting that the Federal Circuit “affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction that would have forced the accused infringer to seek dismissal of its petitions for inter partes review.”

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

• a blog post discussing how, “in many IP cases involving foreign defendants,” circumventing Article 5 of the Hague Convention may provide a “sense of victory [that] might be premature”;
• an article addressing “whether portfolio patent licenses can be sufficiently comparable to a single-patent license for the purposes of supporting a patent damages verdict”;
• another blog post detailing the Federal Circuit’s clarification of “the distinction between conduct warranting enhanced damages and the lesser standard of willful infringement”; and
• a report about how the Federal Circuit “revived a military security contractor’s bid for reimbursement of a penalty charged by Afghanistan’s government.”