Although argument week isn’t until next week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument today in two cases. One was rescheduled from earlier this month for medical reasons. But the other, GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva...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
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
Thanksgiving has come and gone, and we’ve all hopefully had a chance to ponder what we’re thankful for (including that a wild 2020 is about to close). Next week marks the start of the Federal Circuit’s last oral argument...more
At Federal Circuitry blog, we like to check in once in a while on what the Federal Circuit is doing in its orders that don’t get posted on the public website. Those orders often offer nuggets about practice at the Federal...more
11/25/2020
/ Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Sua Sponte ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Vacated ,
Vacatur
Last week, the Federal Circuit was relatively busy, issuing five precedential opinions and three other written decisions. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection...more
In what seems to be a pattern, the week before argument week was again light on output at the Federal Circuit. The Court issued just two opinions and two dispositive orders. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and...more
Perhaps the biggest Federal Circuit news last week didn’t come from the Federal Circuit; it happened when the Supreme Court granted review in Arthrex. In the Federal Circuit, the Court not surprisingly issued a smattering of...more
Over the past several months, we’ve looked at what Federal Circuit cases the Supreme Court has and hasn’t reviewed, and how often the Supreme Court agrees with each Federal Circuit judge. Today, we got another data point with...more
Last week was court week, and as we noted in our video insights, the Federal Circuit was very busy hearing arguments (not many were cancelled). Given that, it is perhaps no surprise that there weren’t many precedential...more
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
At Federal Circuitry blog, we like to check in once in a while on what the Federal Circuit is doing in its orders that don’t get posted on the public website. Those orders often offer nuggets about practice at the Federal...more
9/9/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
FRCP 38 ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Mootness ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Oral Argument ,
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 summer was winding down and the Federal Circuit was gearing up for its September argument session. But the Court still found time to hand down a number of decisions—17 in total. Below we provide our usual weekly...more
9/1/2020
/ Appeals ,
Appellate Courts ,
Claim Construction ,
Concurrent Litigation ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventors ,
Judicial Estoppel ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Partial Reversal ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pre-AIA Patents ,
Rebuttable Presumptions
As we mentioned in one of our previous posts, the Federal Circuit recently denied a long-pending petition for rehearing en banc in American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings, a Section 101 case. More than 8 months...more
It was a moderately eventful week at the Federal Circuit as the judges geared up for their August argument session and perhaps returned from their summer vacations. The Court issued 13 opinions and 2 orders on petitions for a...more
8/6/2020
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Standard of Review
While the rest of us wait on the Federal Circuit’s decision on the rehearing petitions in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., there are signs that the Federal Circuit judges themselves may already have moved on.
In...more
3/23/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pending Litigation ,
Presidential Appointments ,
Removal At-Will
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