If the scope of the IPR estoppel statute has been keeping you up at night, our latest case of the (recent) week might help you sleep a little better because it provides clarity on two aspects of the statute’s reach. ...more
Some of you may remember the Federal Circuit’s decision from a few (actually 5!) years ago holding that patent owner statements made in an IPR proceeding may “support a finding of prosecution disclaimer during claim...more
We’re still waiting (and probably will be for a little while) for the first opinion from newly confirmed Judge Tiffany Cunningham. But in the meantime, we provide below our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our...more
The Federal Circuit wrapped up another (perhaps final) week of telephone arguments last week. As of now, the Court is still set to restart in-person arguments next month. But we’ll have to see if those plans change. Below we...more
There's a new Chief Judge at the Federal Circuit (as of Saturday), but life continues as usual here at Federal Circuitry. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection...more
Wow—it was a busy week at the Court last week. Lots of opinions, and lots of precedential ones. There were lots of good choices out there, so we sort of threw a dart at a board to see which one to write about. In the end,...more
Last week was argument week, and the Federal Circuit previewed its new YouTube channel for streaming live arguments (sadly, audio only for now). Still, that didn’t slow the Federal Circuit down in issuing opinions, including...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
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
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