Now that the Court is open to the public—not just for arguing counsel but for anyone to watch arguments and visit the Court—I thought it was time to take a look at argument timing again....more
The Supreme Court term has started, and the Court once again seems to be dipping its toes in the water with more CVSGs in 101 cases. Maybe this time the Court will take the plunge. For our case of the week—our highly...more
The Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision Monday in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, -1452, -1458. Although a majority of the Court held that Congress’s statutory scheme violated the Constitution, the...more
6/22/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
There’s a perception in the Federal Circuit bar that that Court has been scheduling cases for oral argument a bit quicker recently. Now, on some levels, it’s all relative—the Federal Circuit has always been pretty quick in...more
Originating tribunal: Patent Trial and Appeal Board -
Date: March 12, 2021 -
Panel: Judges Newman, Moore, and Stoll, with Judge Moore writing the precedential order -
Result: Appeal dismissed, and mandamus...more
3/16/2021
/ All Writs Act ,
Denial of Institution ,
Due Process ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals ,
Jurisdiction ,
Mandamus Petitions ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion
All eyes are on Arthrex this week, right? So of course we decided to take a look at a Board decision, and one that—so says the dissent—creates a circuit split. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of...more
As many readers know, the Supreme Court just granted a petition for certiorari in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. The case asks the Supreme Court to abolish the doctrine of assignor estoppel. But the Supreme Court...more
Now that the new year has started, we’re seeing an uptick in precedential opinions. This week we decided to turn back to patent appeals, taking a look at IPRs and Article III—always a fun topic. Below we provide our usual...more
1/11/2021
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Burden-Shifting ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mootness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Rule 36 ,
Standing ,
Vacatur
Last week, we got what may be the last big batch of Federal Circuit opinions of 2020. (In 2019, only six more opinions issued between this time and the end of the year.) Although most of last week’s decisions were issued...more
We updated our stats, so we now have over a year of data since we started collecting data from every Federal Circuit decision. As such, we thought we might take a look at some of the timing data on Federal Circuit appeals. ...more
This week we talk about the most important standing decision decided by any court last week. Ok, perhaps, it was the second most important standing decision. Last week’s case addresses who may sue, and when they must sue...more
12/15/2020
/ Article III ,
Department of Veterans Affairs ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pending Litigation ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Rule 36 ,
Standing ,
Veterans
The Federal Circuit had a fairly busy week as summer officially came to a close. It issued six written decisions last week, three precedential. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our...more
Maybe it was the end of summer and the start of fall, or the kids (kind of) going back to school. But whatever it was, last week the Court issued only one precedential decision, in a veteran’s benefits case. All said, the...more
9/17/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appeals ,
Appellate Courts ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Follow-On Patent Petitions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Reaffirmation ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Vacated
Last week was September Court week, marking the unofficial end of summer for Federal Circuit practitioners. The Court issued a total of 25 decisions, including 8 Rule 36 summary affirmances in cases argued last week, as well...more
9/9/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Blackberry ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Facebook ,
Google ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Joinder ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
Last week, the Court did not have many precedential decisions as Washington, D.C., COVID-19 or not, was in its usual August slowdown. Unlike the previous two weeks where we touched upon non-patent issues, we return (kind of,...more
8/25/2020
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Adverse Action ,
America Invents Act ,
Appellate Courts ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Exclusive Jurisdiction ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Reaffirmation ,
Set-Asides
On the same day that patent challengers breathed a sigh of relief once the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) in Oil States, the Court also threw a monkey wrench into the way IPRs will be...more
After the biggest challenge yet to the Patent and Trademark Office’s popular inter partes review proceedings, the name of the game is largely “same old” for today’s Supreme Court decision in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v....more
The United States Supreme Court decided today that: (1) the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) acted within its rulemaking authority by adopting the rule that patent claims must be given their “broadest...more
6/21/2016
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Chevron Deference ,
Claim Construction ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Final Judgment ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO
The 2015 Changes to the Federal Rules Matter for Your Patent Case and Tech Business: Getting in the Courthouse Door Just Got Tougher -
It used to be that a complaint for patent infringement would survive a motion to...more
4/22/2016
/ America Invents Act ,
Anti-Monopoly ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
FRAND ,
Germany ,
Huawei ,
Injunctions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Japan ,
Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) ,
Judicial Review ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pleading Standards ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
USPTO ,
Websites ,
ZTE
Not so fast: the United States Supreme Court is set to review the America Invents Act’s (“AIA”) fast-track inter partes review (“IPR”) process. On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cuozzo Speed...more
1/21/2016
/ America Invents Act ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Certiorari ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Rulemaking Process ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO