FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied two petitions for rehearing raising questions related to the presumption of nexus in a non-obviousness analysis. Here are the details.

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 estoppel arising from inter partes review, the legal standard for overruling prior precedential decisions, claim construction, and the standard for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to evaluate substitute claims and a motion to amend claims. The court also invited responses to four petitions raising questions related to the presumption of nexus in a non-obviousness analysis; the process and standard for determining indefiniteness; and choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the assignment of patents and standing. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the motivation to combine prior art references in an obviousness analysis. The court also invited a response to a petition that raising questions related to the standard for granting a motion to seal court records. The court received an amicus brief in support of a petition raising a question related to the presumption of nexus in an obviousness analysis. Finally, the court received a reply in support of a petition raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

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

• a blog post discussing a pending trademark case involving a rejection of a trademark for being “deceptively misdescriptive”;
• an article highlighting how, in a patent case, “former CAFC Chief Judge, Paul Michel, . . . filed an amicus brief . . . asking the full [Federal Circuit] to resolve ‘unintentional confusion and conflict’ in the court’s obviousness jurisprudence”; and
• another article discussing “a challenge to the $185 million in legal fees a U.S. court awarded . . . in an Affordable Care Act class action that secured $3.7 billion for health insurers.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received four new petitions raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings, motivation to combine prior art references, and the presumption of nexus in a non-obviousness analysis. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and a response to a motion to expedite issuance of the mandate in a case raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. The court also invited a response to the petition already mentioned that raised a question related to motivation to combine prior art references. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. Here are the details.

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

• an article explaining how “Zaxcom has petitioned the court for rehearing en banc, arguing that the CAFC’s precedent . . . ‘confused the law’ regarding a rebuttable presumption of nexus”;
• another article discussing how “[a] split US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that US chemical company BASF is able to be sued” for alleged infringement; and
• a blog post discussing how, “[i]n a new petition for writ of certiorari, Cisco asks for guidance on whether enhanced damages under Section 284 require ‘egregious infringement behavior’ or instead is it enough to find ‘deliberate or intentional infringement.’”

In February, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. On appeal, the parties presented arguments concerning whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly construed certain claims, correctly found certain claim elements in the prior art, whether its analysis of secondary considerations of non-obviousness was correct, and whether the Board correctly found substitute claims to be patentable. Former Chief Judge Paul R. Michel filed an amicus brief encouraging the court to take the time to clarify the court’s law regarding the non-obviousness requirement, while US Inventor, Inc. also filed an amicus brief arguing the Board disregarded industry praise in finding that the claims were obvious. Judge Taranto authored a unanimous opinion on behalf of himself and Judges Lourie and Schall affirming the Board’s judgments. This is our opinion summary.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight three opinions: the first in a death benefit case addressing a former spouse’s annuity, the second in a patent case, and a consolidated cases regarding the Tucker Act. We also highlight reply briefs in three patent cases, and an argument recap in a patent case that attracted two amicus briefs. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued five nonprecedential opinions. Two came in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Two came in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The last came in a government contract case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Last Wednesday, the court heard oral argument in Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., an appeal by Zaxcom from an adverse decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding initiated by Lectrosonics. We have been following the case because it attracted two amicus briefs, one from retired Federal Circuit Judge Paul R. Michel and one from U.S. Inventor, Inc. On appeal, Zaxcom argues the PTAB incorrectly construed certain claims, incorrectly found certain claim elements in the prior art, and erred in its analysis of secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Lectrosonics cross-appeals, arguing the Board incorrectly found substitute claims to be patentable. Judges Lourie, Schall, Taranto heard Wednesday’s argument. This is our argument recap.