FedCircuitBlog

Guest Post by Kristen Osenga

In any given year, the Federal Circuit covers a wide spectrum of issues in patent law, and 2020 was no different. Of course, a lot about 2020 was different — including seeing the Court hold (and now livestream) telephonic arguments — but most of the patent cases decided were similar in type to other years . . . a little patent-eligible subject matter, a little jurisdiction and venue, a case about infringement of standard essential patents, and a bit of deciding what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can and cannot do. There were no real blockbuster cases in 2020 (other than maybe the Arthrex denial of rehearing, more on that later). This could be due to the pandemic, or maybe it is a sign that patent law is settling in for a bit. Of course, that does not mean the law has settled in the right place, but that is a different issue for a different day.

For today, a few cases are worth highlighting from the Federal Circuit’s 2020 patent opinions. To be clear, this is not an exhaustive review, but rather simply a short selection noting some of the more important patent cases decided last year.

• Big Pharma to Face Off at Federal Circuit Oral Arguments Over Antibody Genus Patentability – A preview of an upcoming Federal Circuit case concerning enablement.
• No Patent? No Problem! The Federal Circuit Paves The Way For Non-Patent Owners To Sue Infringers – What happens in a patent lawsuit when not all of the parties that have an ownership interest in a patent are joined as plaintiffs?
• The Federal Circuit Tries To Demystify Venue in Hatch-Waxman Actions – In Valeant Pharms. N. Am. v. Mylan Pharms., the Federal Circuit attempted to clarify where “acts of infringement” for venue purposes under §1400(b) occur in Hatch-Waxman actions.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case. The Federal Circuit also issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

• GI Bill Ruling Won’t Come in Time for Fall Classes – Veteran students deprived of GI Bill benefits needed for the Fall semester while waiting for Federal Circuit input.
• Prior Work Can Lead to Joint Inventorship – Work by co-inventors performed independently and publicly disclosed prior to the conception of the claimed invention can constitute joint inventorship.
• Federal Circuit Won’t Revisit Relistor Ruling – Valeant failed to persuade the Federal Circuit to revisit their obviousness decision in Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a petition filed in a pro se case; a new response to a petition raising questions related to injunctions; and the denial of four petitions raising questions related to standing, obviousness, and assignor estoppel. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in two cases raising questions related to obviousness; responses to petitions in two cases raising questions related to inequitable conduct, obviousness, and assignor estoppel; an invitation for a response to a petition raising questions related to standing; and the denial of four petitions raising questions related to claim construction and the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.