FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a news alert reporting how “Dish Network LLC asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether courts can require attorneys to pay legal fees in exceptionally frivolous patent cases”;
• a blog post analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision where the central issue in the case “revolved around the interpretation of [35 U.S.C.] § 311(b)’s limitation that [inter partes review] challenges may be based only on ‘prior art consisting of patents or printed publications’”; and
• an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision “canceling trademarks claiming protection for the pink color of ceramic hip components.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the nonprecedential orders denies a petition for the Court of International Trade to effect service of process on a foreign company, while the other dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and first order and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, six new petitions were filed in two patent cases, a trade case, and three pro se cases. The Court also received waivers of the right to respond in two pro se cases, a brief in opposition in a veterans case, two replies in support of petitions in a patent case and a veterans case, and an amicus brief in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, two Rule 36 summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se veterans case. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to summary affirmances and dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, eight nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases and one pro se case. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for summary judgment; three transfer cases; and four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the summary affirmance.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in HMTX Industries LLC v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, HMTX appeals a judgment by the Court of International Trade, which upheld the U.S. Trade Representative’s tariffs on Chinese goods. HMTX alleged USTR’s tariffs “on hundreds of billions of dollars of imported Chinese goods are ultra vires and procedurally infirm.” This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a news alert suggesting decisions by the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit “have called into question the validity of broad antibody patent claims, leading some commentators to declare the death of the antibody genus claim;”
• a blog post indicating the Federal Circuit “issued a notable opinion on federal preemption of state law conversion (theft) claims and correction of inventorship;”
• a report highlighting how the Supreme Court “rejected a case asking the justices to interpret a patent-infringement safe-harbor provision in a federal statute ‘solely for uses reasonably related’ to the process [for] winning government approval of a drug or medical device;” and
• an article reporting how an “import ban on Roku Inc. streaming devices will stand after the U.S. Supreme Court turned away its challenge to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s finding Universal Electronics Inc. met the agency’s domestic-industry requirement with patented software.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases and one pro se case. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants an unopposed motion by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to remand a case back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other similarly grants a motion by the government to remand a case back to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the summary affirmance.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Dinh v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. That court held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Stoll, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.