FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include four denials of petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases concerning questions of patent eligibility, printed publications, and inter partes review. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include three new petitions for rehearing filed in appeals in inter partes review proceedings decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims unpatentable and denying a revised motion to amend claims. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and summary affirmance.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This week and next Monday the Federal Circuit will hold 17 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 47 cases. Notable cases include Evolved Wireless LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., In Re FCA US LLC, X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., and VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.

A constitutional question will be argued next week in a patent case entitled Evolved Wireless LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc. This case presents, however, a total of three issues:  (1) “Whether the Board erred in concluding the patent claims at issue are unpatentable, by failing to properly apply its own adopted claim construction”; (2) “Whether the Board erred by refusing to consider the declaration of Evolved’s expert on the sole ground that it did not include a statement referring to penalty of perjury”; and (3) “Whether the proceedings violated Evolved’s Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights.”