Home » Posts tagged 'CAFC'
Tag Archives: CAFC
An update on developments in the US was provided during the Finnegan “A Year in Review” seminar. Anthony Tridico noted that there are now “Three Kings” in the US: the Supreme Court of the United States, the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Anthony noted that the PTAB has become the number 1 most active jurisdiction in the US after only two years of operation.
First up however was the Federal Circuit and a case relating to double patenting. (more…)
Today we have a few nuggets of unitary patent and UPC news from around the web. In the post below we have an update on the state of German ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement, a reference to the European Patent Litigation Certificate in IPReg’s UK patent attorney exam proposals and we also highlight a couple of recent articles on the Kluwer Patent Blog that discussed unitary patent renewal fee progress and the possibility of a pro-patent bias in the UPC. (more…)
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have had a busy month as far as intellectual property cases are concerned. Today on IPcopy we have a handy overview courtesy of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. of what’s been baking the noodle of SCOTUS and CAFC recently. So in reverse date order here we go…. (more…)
It’s the Summer of Patents at the Supreme Court of the United States of America! After a number of years when SCOTUS did its level best to ignore all patent matters, the coming into force of the America Invents Act and increased attention to patent issues in general commercial life seems to have created a climate in which the Supremes consider that their guidance on matters of patent law is more frequently needed – there is also a suggestion that the Supreme Court is less than impressed with recent CAFC decisions. One of the bumper crop of recent cases is Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., available here. Limelight addresses one of several issues relating to infringement of claims relating to activities involving multiple parties communicating electronically – can there be inducement to infringe a claim if no single party has directly infringed that claim? (more…)
The US Supreme Court announced on Friday that it is to review the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl. case. The US Court of Appeal, of course, recently handed down its take on the case (see decision dated 10 May 2013 here) in which the 10 judge panel exhibited something of a split opinion.
At the recent AIPLA event in Washington Chief Judge Rader (one of the 10 judge CAFC panel on the Alice/CLS case) commented that he regarded that case as a personal failure and a failure of his institution (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Listening to other attorneys at AIPLA a number of feelings were expressed about the case including bafflement, frustration and the merest hint of “the End of Days”.