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 discussing whether, in the context of the Patent Act, “obviousness is a straightforward inquiry”;
• an article assessing the Federal Circuit and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s approaches to patent subject matter eligibility;
• another blog post analyzing the primary takeaways from a recent Federal Circuit patent case addressing damages; and
• another article explaining how “AT&T Corp. survived a patent infringement claim . . . after the Federal Circuit found there wasn’t sufficient evidence that the telephone service provider’s remote terminals were in locations covered by the patents.”

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 “St Jude Medical will have to defend claims that its catheters infringe[d] a company’s revived patent”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “affirm[ed] — on a procedural technicality — a precedential decision of a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that granted a motion to amend claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding”; and
• yet another article assessing how “Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.‘s best hope for escaping a $42 million patent infringement verdict won by Seagen Inc. may lie in its separate administrative challenge to Seagen’s patent.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Minnesota addressing numerous issues concerning validity and infringement. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential opinions in patent, tax, and employment cases. Notably, in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion. Finally, the court issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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

• an article focusing on the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision overruling a district court’s conclusion that [patent] claims were directed to ineligible subject matter;
• a blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that a forum selection clause did not apply to inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
• an article addressing how the Federal Circuit found that “claims of a patent covering an artificial heart valve were erroneously held to be unpatentable by the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board”; and
• a blog post discussing how “the Federal Circuit affirmed an exclusion order by the [International Trade] Commission” in a patent case.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and one in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Full Federal Circuit Won’t Revisit Dana-Farber Win on Named Inventors – The Federal Circuit refused to rehear a case en banc involving the addition of inventors to a pharmaceutical patent.
• CAFC Affirms District Court Dismissal of Declaratory Judgment Under Doctrine of ‘Abstention’ – The Doctrine of ‘Abstention’ guided the Federal Circuit’s decision in Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Sasso to affirm the lower court’s ruling to dismiss a claim for declaratory judgment.
• Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in Light of the Specification – Snyders Heart Valve can continue its infringement claims against St. Jude’s Medical after a recent decision by the Federal Circuit.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a trade case, one precedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.