FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article about the U.S. International Trade Commission finding “Apple Watches with an electrocardiogram (ECG) function infringe patents belonging to medical device maker AliveCor Inc”;
• another article about Amgen Inc.’s arguments to the Supreme Court that “patents needn’t spell out every possible iteration of an invention in order to be eligible for protection”;
• a third article about “VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corp . . . agree[ing] to end a patent dispute in Delaware”; and
• a fourth article about “[t]he Federal Circuit . . . order[ing] a California company to defend patent litigation it filed in Texas, as its competitor in optical filters is asking to have the case transferred.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post about some of the most common claim drafting issues “for biotech, chemical and pharma patent applications”;
• an article about how “VLSI Technology LLC plans to appeal an administrative ruling that wiped out 12 of its microchip patent claims”; and
• another article about “Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc. . . . [urging] the Federal Circuit to undo a federal injunction forcing it to delist a narcolepsy drug-related patent.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article about a $948 million patent infringement verdict between Intel and VLSI Technology LLC;
• another article about a Federal Circuit decision finding a generic cancer drug infringes on “Abbvie’s Pharmacyclics and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Biotech . . . blockbuster cancer drug Imbruvica”; and
• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision “involving American National Manufacturing and Sleep Number Corp.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s decision that specific claims are unpatentable, reversed the Board’s construction of the phrase “used for electrical interconnection,” and remanded the case. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware; and the third comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and one transfers an appeal to the District of Maryland.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit opinion that found a “Scheduling Order . . . went too far in mandating additional substantive discovery and re-briefing” in light of a pending motion to transfer;
• an article about “[t]he fourth round of a multibillion-dollar dispute between Intel and VLSI”; and
• another blog post about how Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC “has the potential of shaking up [patent law’s] disclosure doctrine.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article about a “multibillion-dollar patent infringement case at the Federal Circuit”;
• another article about the declining number of Delaware patent filings; and
• a blog post about the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issuing sanctions based on abuse of the inter partes review process.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post about a petition asking the Supreme Court to review a district judge’s decision not to recuse himself despite a family member’s ownership of stock in a party;
• an article about Intel’s appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding “a jury’s $2.1 billion patent verdict against it”; and
• another article about the impact of the Federal Circuit’s decision that “AI systems are not eligible to be inventors under US patent statutes.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in an Equal Access to Justice Act case and two in patent cases raising questions related to eligibility and enhanced damages; members of Congress filed an amicus brief in an employment law case that involves interpretation of the Reservists Pay Security Act; the government submitted a brief in opposition in a case concerning the Tucker Act and another brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the non-obviousness requirement; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied review in four cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. As for still-pending petitions, three new petitions were filed: one in a patent case raising questions related to eligible subject matter and two filed by pro se petitioners. Waivers of right to respond were filed in two cases: the patent case already mentioned raising questions related to eligible subject matter and another patent case also concerning eligibility. Finally, a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case that raises a question regarding the appealability of a discretionary denial of inter partes review. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court granted certiorari in a veterans case. The Court also requested the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case. No new petitions were filed, but one amicus brief was submitted in support of a petition in a patent case and a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case. Additionally, the Court denied four petitions: two in patent cases and two in pro se cases. Here are the details.