FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. We have activity to report in both of the court’s two pending en banc veterans cases: a unanimous opinion in one and the filing of the appellant’s reply brief in the other. In patent cases with petitions for en banc rehearing, six new petitions have been filed raising questions related to patent eligibility, claim construction, due process, inducement of infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman, and venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman. The court has also issued invitations for responses to petitions in two cases raising questions related to patent eligibility and intervention. And the court has denied three petitions raising questions related to obviousness, infringement and claim construction. Here are the details.

• Fed. Circ. Ruling Is Troubling For Generic Drug Manufacturers – In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion addressing the role of skinny labels in an induced infringement analysis.
• Work History Tool Properly Held Ineligible for Patent Protection – The Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion on Monday affirming a district court decision that an invention directed at a method for verifying work history is too abstract to patent.
• Fed. Circ. Urged To Undo Ugg’s $450K Trademark Win – An Australian apparel company argued on Monday that the lower court used the wrong legal test in finding that “ugg” is not a generic word for a kind of sheepskin boot.

Here’s the latest.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight three dispositions in patent cases addressing estoppel related to inter partes review, anticipation, and induced infringement; new briefing in another patent case related to standing; one recent oral argument in a patent case addressing personal jurisdiction; and four upcoming oral arguments in veterans and government contracts cases.

• Showdown Looms on Cost Accounting Standards – Boeing can challenge a Federal Acquisition Regulation provision regarding Cost Accounting Standards thanks to a recent Federal Circuit decision.
• A $75 Million Drug Sale Lands Teva a $235 Million Penalty – The Federal Circuit awarded $235 million to Glaxosmithkline for Teva’s sale of a generic version of a Glaxosmithkline heart medicine.

Here’s the latest.

On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a case we have been tracking because it attracted three amicus briefs. Judge Newman authored the majority opinion, which Judge Moore joined. Judges Newman and Moore vacated a district court’s judgment as a matter of law and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate a jury verdict of induced infringement in favor of GlaxoSMithKline based on indications of use in labels applied by Teva, a generic drug manufacturer. Chief Judge Prost filed a thirty-three page dissenting opinion, taking the majority to task for “creating infringement liability for any generic entering the market with a [so-called] skinny label, and by permitting infringement liability for a broader label that itself did not actually cause any direct infringement.” Here is a summary of the majority and dissenting opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a first patent case and a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to claim construction; new invitations to respond to petitions raising questions related to novelty and non-obviousness; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to design patent law and joinder in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued seven precedential opinions and orders in patent cases, along with one related nonprecedential opinion. These include the opinions and orders in the closely watched case of American Axle & Manufacturing v. NEAPCO Holdings LLC, which concerns the application of patent eligibility law. Notably, in that case the court vacated the prior panel opinion, issued a new panel opinion, and denied en banc rehearing by an evenly divided court. Here are the introductions to today’s opinions and text from today’s orders.