FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions in two cases raising the same question related to claim construction. Additionally, the court denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two cases raising questions about eligibility and enablement of prior art. 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 highlighting seven Federal Circuit decisions from August, which “provided some helpful clarity on [obviousness-type double patenting], written description, indefiniteness, and the support needed for an exceptional case finding”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court has “denied yet another petition for writ of certiorari seeking clarity on the patent eligibility of claims covering improvements to computer technologies under 35 U.S.C. § 101”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent en banc petition the author says “highlights the tension between judicial efficiency and the court’s constitutional duty to independently review agency actions.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions in two cases raising a question about whether an undisputed feature of prior art may serve as the basis for patent eligibility and questions about enablement of prior art. The court also denied a petition for en banc rehearing raising questions about attorneys’ fees. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion reverses a grant of summary judgment in a patent infringement case and remands the case for further proceedings. The first nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal of a decision from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.