2012/2013 Federal Circuit Year in Review

January 7, 2014

We are pleased to present Gibson Dunn’s first "Federal Circuit Year In Review," providing a statistical overview and substantive summaries of the 120 precedential patent opinions issued by the Federal Circuit over the 2012-2013 year. This term was marked by three en banc decisions and several significant shifts in patent law jurisprudence, including significant changes to the law of indirect infringement (Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.), subject matter eligibility for computer implemented method, system and media claims (CLS Bank Intern. v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.) and the burden of proof in a licensee/licensor patent challenge (Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp). The issues most frequently addressed by the Court this last year were obviousness (39 opinions), followed by claim construction (36 opinions), District court procedures (25 opinions), infringement (22 opinions) and anticipation (20 opinions).

The Year In Review provides a concise, substantive analysis of the Court’s decisions, and organizes each case according to the key issues addressed. The easy-to-use Table of Contents is organized by issue, so that the reader can easily identify all of the relevant cases bearing on the issue of choice.

Use the Year In Review to find out …

  • Which issues have a better chance on appeal based on the Federal Circuit’s history of affirming or reversing that issue in the past.
  • What the likelihood of success is at the Federal Circuit if you are a patentee or the opponent based on the issue being appealed.
  • The Federal Circuit’s history of affirming or reversing cases from a specific district court.
  • The average length of time from issuance of a final decision in the district court to issuance of a Federal Circuit opinion on appeal.
  • How likely a particular panel will be to render a unanimous opinion or a fractured decision with a majority, concurrence, and dissent.
  • The real rate of affirmance on claim construction.
  • The Federal Circuit’s affirmance/reversal rate in cases from the ITC and the PTO.

The Year In Review provides a statistical analysis of how the Federal Circuit has been deciding cases, such as affirmance and reversal rates (by issue and by District Court), average time from lower tribunal decision to key milestones (oral argument, decision), win rate for patentee versus opponent (overall, by issue, and by District Court), decision rate by Judge (number of unanimous, majority, dissent, etc. opinions), etc. The Year In Review is an ideal resource for practitioners seeking an objective report on the Court’s decisions.

To view the Federal Circuit Year in Review – CLICK HERE

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP     

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Federal Circuit.  Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work or the authors of this alert:

Thomas G. Hungar - Washington, D.C. (202-955-8500, thungar@gibsondunn.com)
Michael Sitzman – San Francisco (415-393-8200, msitzman@gibsondunn.com)

Please also feel free to contact any of the following practice group co-chairs or any member of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group or its Intellectual Property Practice Group

Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group:
Theodore B. Olson – Washington, D.C. (202-955-8500, tolson@gibsondunn.com)
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. – Los Angeles (213-229-7000, tboutrous@gibsondunn.com)
Daniel M. Kolkey – San Francisco (415-393-8200, dkolkey@gibsondunn.com)
Thomas G. Hungar - Washington, D.C. (202-955-8500, thungar@gibsondunn.com)
Miguel A. Estrada – Washington, D.C. (202-955-8500, mestrada@gibsondunn.com)

Intellectual Property Practice Group:
Wayne Barsky - Los Angeles (310-557-8183, wbarsky@gibsondunn.com)
Mark Reiter – Dallas (214-698-3360, mreiter@gibsondunn.com)
Josh Krevitt – New York (212-351-2490, jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com

© 2014 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Attorney Advertising: The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.