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 explaining how a company that was “denied institution on three inter partes review (IPR) petitions . . . could not simply ‘repackage’ arguments raised in its IPR petition to challenge the same patent via ex parte reexamination”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit keeps on laying down rules of the road for U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas when it comes to transferring cases to California”;
• a post discussing whether a recent Federal Circuit opinion “may be hinting that willful blindness isn’t enough, by itself, for willful [patent] infringement”; and
• another blog post noting tension between how the Federal Circuit reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and its own practice with respect to Rule 36 summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion resulted from an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and in the opinion the court addressed when ex parte reexamination is available to a requester who has already made the same arguments in an inter partes review proceeding. The second precedential opinion resulted from an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and in the opinion the court addressed issues related to government contract claims. The nonprecedential opinion resulted in another appeal from the PTAB. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• NYIPLA Amicus Brief in Ericsson v. Samsung Advocates the Adjudication of U.S. Patent Rights by U.S. Courts – The New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) recently submitted an amicus brief urging the Federal Circuit to balance the interests of the U.S. in resolving domestic patent protection against the rule of comity.
• Vivint Patent Ruling Upheld Over Belated Appointments Argument – The Federal Circuit ruled that Vivint forfeited the constitutional arguments from Arthrex when it failed to raise such arguments on appeal, even though Arthrex had not yet been issued at the time of the appeal.
• Banks Face Lawsuit ‘Frenzy’ After Business Patent Reviews End – In the last eight months, nearly three times as many patent suits involving financial services patents have been filed against banks and e-commerce companies after the PTO’s covered business method review program expired last September.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued six nonprecedential opinions: four in patent cases, one in a tax case affirming a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.