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
If you don’t appeal an issue from an adverse judgment, are you going to be bound by the decision on that issue in future cases? This can often be an important question to consider when deciding whether and what issues to...more
Sometimes just because the rules permit something doesn’t mean doing it is a good idea. As our latest case-of-the-week shows, the result could be an award of attorney fees.
Case of the week: Realtime Adaptive Streaming...more
Now that it’s been roughly a month since the Federal Circuit issued mass sua sponte Arthrex orders (which we discussed in Early Hints About What Happens Next After Arthrex), we thought it was worth checking in on what’s...more
Now that we have the Supreme Court’s big decision in Arthrex, which we wrote about here, many of us are wondering what the next steps will look like. We may know sooner rather than later. Today, the Federal Circuit issued a...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
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
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
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
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
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
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