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.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments, one affirming a judgment appealed from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the other affirming a judgment appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The court also issued one erratum. Here are links to the relevant orders.
CAFC Affirms Improper Venue Ruling in Victoria’s Secrets’ Favor – On IPWatchDog, Matthew Schutte posted an article reporting on a Federal Circuit decision to affirm the grant of a motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit based on improper venue.
Judge Albright will Keep the Google and Apple Cases – In a post on PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch offers his thoughts on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision not to order Judge Albright to transfer certain patent cases.
Arthrex-Based TTAB Challenge Meets Dubious Federal Circuit Panel – Kyle Jahner reports for Bloomberg that “[a] piano company trying to revive its trademark encountered a Federal Circuit skeptical of its argument.”
Shell, ARCO, Texaco, Unocal Win $100 Million WWII Cleanup Appeal – In this article on BloombergLaw.com, Daniel Seiden reports on the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Shell Oil Co. v. United States.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one affirming a district court’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and another dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one affirming a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and another affirming a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.