FedCircuitBlog

• A new petition was filed in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
• New responses were filed in (1) Celgene Corp. v. Peter, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, and (3) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC
• New replies were filed in (1) General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp. and (2) Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals LLC

Here is the latest on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• No Importing Limitations from Specification in § 101 Analysis -Thomas DaMario recaps the result in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.
• Google Asks Full Fed. Circ. Not To Rehear Venue Ruling – Google urged the Federal Circuit not to rehear In re Google LLC en banc.
• Federal Circuit Revives Cardiac Monitoring Patent – The Federal Circuit held that the claims at issue were not patent ineligible under § 101 in Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.

Here’s the latest.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights the Federal Circuit’s decision to throw out a $100 million verdict in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., another decision holding that attorneys’ fees may not be awarded where a case is dismissed without a court order, a blog post about the frequency individual Federal Circuit judges heard or canceled oral arguments this month, and a post highlighting the first telephonic oral arguments heard by the Federal Circuit this month.

As we reported earlier today, this morning a panel of the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. In this case, the panel reached three important conclusions regarding procedural and substantive matters related to allegations of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one precedential opinion in a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

As a reminder, once a month we provide an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. Today with respect to these cases we highlight one opinion, briefing in six cases, a recent oral argument, and three upcoming oral arguments. (Note you can always find information related to these cases on our “Other Cases” page.) On to the update.

The Federal Circuit issued four opinions today. It issued precedential opinions in a patent case and a veterans case, and nonprecedential opinions in another veterans case and a personnel case.

Notably, the patent case is TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, a case we have been watching because it attracted a significant number of amicus briefs, as discussed previously on this blog. In short, in that case the Federal Circuit agreed with Ericsson that the district court should have held a jury trial on the appropriate “release payment” owed Ericsson for a license to Ericsson’s portfolio of standard-essential patents. By resolving the case in this manner, the court found no need to address the various issues raised in the amicus briefs about the proper calculation of payments for licenses to standard-essential patents.

Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Periodically Fed Circuit Blog will provide an update on important cases pending before panels at the Federal Circuit, particularly cases with amicus briefs. Today we highlight TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. At least based on the number of amicus briefs filed in the case, it is one of the most watched cases pending at the court.