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 how the “Federal Circuit sidestep[ed] [the] determination of generics’ skinny label as protection against induced [patent] infringement”;
• an article detailing how the “Federal Circuit h[eld] that a price ‘quotation’ can trigger [patent law’s] on-sale bar”; and
• another article analyzing how “Disney convince[d] [the] Fed. Circ. to reject [the] ‘Teen Tinker Bell’ trademark.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Recently the Federal Circuit granted en banc review in one veterans case, and last week the en banc court heard oral argument in another veterans case. As for petitions for en banc review in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction. The court also received three new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and the written description requirement. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion addresses issues related to estoppel as a result of inter partes review. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in a patent and employment case, and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for en banc rehearing in a patent case. Notably, with respect to the order, Chief Judge Moore wrote a concurring opinion joined by Judges Newman, O’Malley, Taranto, and Chen, while Judge Prost wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Judges Dyk and Reyna. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders denying and dismissing petitions for writs of mandamus and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. The first opinion addresses issues related to the on-sale bar for a design patent. The second opinion addresses a district court’s finding after a bench trial that claims were invalid for failing to meet the non-obviousness requirement. Notably, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion in this second case. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in an employment case and a veterans disability case. Finally, the court issued two 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 discussing Law360’s “picks for the top trademark rulings of 2021”;
• another article detailing the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board priority determination;
• another article explaining a Federal Circuit decision “[a]ddressing obviousness in the context of method of treatment claims using particular drug dosages”; and
• another article assessing “homes, cars & IP: the valuation method intriguing patent lawyers.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief and the court scheduled the oral argument to occur in February. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. As for petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received two new petitions raising questions relating to the standard for enhanced damages and the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. The court also received responses to two petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to the interpretation of a forum selection clause, a writ of mandamus, and comparable licenses and royalty calculations, and another petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, a nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinions come in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential orders dismiss petitions for writs of mandamus, one seeking to order transfer in a patent case and the other in an apparent pro se case pending at the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions, one raising a question related to comparable licenses and royalty calculations and another raising a question related to the written description requirement. The court received three more amicus briefs in support of rehearing en banc in a case that raises questions concerning the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman amendments. Finally, the court denied three petitions for rehearing en banc, one raising a question related to writs of mandamus and two raising the same questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to writs of mandamus. The court invited a response to a petition that raised questions concerning the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman amendments, and the court received two amicus briefs in support of this petition. Finally, the court denied a petition for rehearing en banc in a case that raised a question relating to the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s analysis of the non-obviousness requirement, and venue. The court also denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to anticipation, the evidentiary basis of an invalidity finding, and the proper standard of review of agency determinations. Here are the details.