FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing how Judge Albright “said the Federal Circuit’s rulings had ‘muddled what facts are relevant’ in determining which court can hear the case faster”;
• a blog post addressing the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that “[a] design [patent] claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim”;
• another article detailing how in an opposition to a trademark “an opposer cannot show standing by merely showing the registrant competes with the opposer and receives a benefit from an unlawful trademark”; and
• another post explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit brought some measure of clarity to the question [of proper venue] recently when it affirmed a District Court dismissal of an ANDA action on improper venue grounds.”

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

• an article about last Friday’s Fed Circuit Blog symposium, noting how two law professors “argued . . . that it might be time to reevaluate the 40-year ‘experiment’ of the Federal Circuit”;
• another article about Friday’s symposium, explaining that other “law professors . . . were torn between whether the appeals court was ‘overstepping’ or reacting rationally to a judge who does not always take the court’s direction”;
• a blog post discussing the backgrounds of the judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit ruling that a “heart monitor patent . . . is invalid for claiming only an abstract idea.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four precedential opinions: two in patent cases appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and one in an international trade case appealed from the U.S. Court of International Trade. The court also released a nonprecedential order requiring the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order, and a link to the erratum.