FedCircuitBlog

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Google and Oracle submitted supplemental briefs addressing the correct standard of review for the second question presented in the case.
• The following two petitions for writ of certiorari were submitted to the Supreme Court: (1) Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. and (2) Essity Hygiene and Health AB v. Cascades Canada ULC.
• Arthrex, Inc. submitted its reply to the Court in the Appointments Clause petition Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
• In The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Techtronic filed its brief in opposition to the petitioner’s argument for granting certiorari.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a government contracts case and a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights an article discussing the potential impact of the Federal Circuit’s holding in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States on fees for searching and downloading federal case files, more commentary on the confusion generated by the Federal Circuit’s approach to patent eligibility in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, and news concerning Fitbit’s case decided by the Federal Circuit last Thursday.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) Blodgett v. United States, (2) United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC, and (3) Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc.
• The United States, Arthrex, Inc, and Smith & Nephew, Inc. filed related responses in the following petitions: (1) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., (2) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., (3) Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., and (4) United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• Only one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court this week in Morsa v. Iancu by Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Here are the details.

• Federal Circuit Keeps Expanding Appointments Decision – The Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. decision was broadened to also encompass ex parte appeals according to the Federal Circuit’s precedential ruling in In re Boloro Global Ltd. on Tuesday.
• BofA’s $173M Refund Suit Belongs In Claims Court – The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded Bank of America Corp. v. United States to the Court of Federal claims because the district court lacked standing under Section 1346(a)(1) of the U.S. Judicial Code.
• Fitbit Given Another Shot At Nixing Biometrics Patent – Fitbit, pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion in Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., was granted a second chance to invalidate all of Valencell’s claims because of an erroneous standing ruling by the PTAB.

Here’s the latest.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received five new petitions this week: (1) Thomas v. Iancu, (2) United States v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., (3) Louis A. Piccone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, (4) Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al., and (5) Michael A. Henry-Bey v. Hector Castro, et al.
• Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC submitted its brief in opposition to the Court in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC.
• Finally, the Court denied petitions in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc. and Ford Motor Co. v. United States.

Here are the details.

• Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Steel Tariffs – The Supreme Court cemented the Trump administration’s victory over steel and aluminum importers by denying cert for American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States.
• Cert Denied in Rovi-Comcast ITC Dispute – The Supreme Court also upheld the International Trade Commission’s ruling against Comcast by denying Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
• Federal Circuit Backs Ford’s Design Patent Win – Ford wins big in automotive patent infringement case upholding the lower court’s decision in Ford Global Technologies, LLC v. New World International, Inc.

Here’s the latest.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• After receiving three petitions last week, the Supreme Court received yet another petition from Lakshmi Arunachalam in Lakshmi Arunachalam, Petitioner v. SAP America, Inc.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the petitioner submitted its reply to the Court, denouncing the claims made by the respondent and further advocating for their writ to be granted.
• Finally, the Supreme Court denied a total of eight different petitions this week, among that group of denied petitions are cases like Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp. and Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission. For the full list of denied petitions, see the list below.

Here are the details.

• New Suits Against Amazon Barred Under Claim Preclusion – Relying on a 1907 decision, the Federal Circuit bars suits against Amazon’s customers.
• Supreme Court Will Not Hear Eli Lilly Patent Appeal – This week, the Supreme Court denied two petitions both relating to a chemotherapy treatment for lung cancer.
• Federal Circuit Upholds Dumping Duties – Chinese solar cell companies were kept accountable for dumping thanks to a recent Federal Circuit ruling.

Here’s the latest.

• Federal Circuit Clerk’s Office Inaccessible Amidst Protests – Due to mass protests in Washington, D.C., the Federal Circuit clerk’s office was inaccessible for both Monday and Tuesday of this week.
• ‘Pump And Dump’ Victims To Recoup Losses – The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision in Adkins v. U.S. allowing “pump and dump” victims to recoup a two million dollar loss.
• Party May Have Standing with Incorrect Patent Assignment – In Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., the Federal Circuit found a reformation to an incorrect assignment does not deprive a plaintiff of Article III standing.

Here’s the latest.