FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to remand in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two dismiss appeals, and one dismisses a petition. This morning, the Court released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and four additional nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and the other comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, one summarily affirms a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, two dismiss appeals, and one dismisses a petition. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than the dismissals, as well as links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “stressed that the inventorship listed on a patent demands perfection”;
• a blog post noting “a final rule in the Federal Register” explains that the USPTO “is ‘revising its practice of requiring additional information for delays in taking certain actions in patent applications and patents’”;
• an article discussing how the “Department of Justice has told the Federal Circuit that multibillion-dollar patent infringement litigation should be directed at the government, instead of Moderna”; and
• an article arguing “[m]any news outlets have struggled to accurately characterise the nature of the proceedings surrounding [Judge] Newman, leading to widespread misunderstanding among readers and legal observers alike.”

Recently the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ollnova Technologies, Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the patent owner, Ollnova, appeals a district court’s denial of requested prejudgment interest, and the accused infringer, Ecobee, cross-appeals the district court’s decisions on jury instructions and multiple issues including eligibility, infringement, damages, and marking. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Cunningham and Stark, the panel affirmed-in-part, dismissed-in-part, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case. This is our summary of the opinion.

One case being argued at the Federal Circuit in July attracted an amicus brief. This case is In re Satius Holding, Inc., a patent case. In it, Satius appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an ex parte reexamination. In the appeal, Satius presents questions related to claim construction and prosecution history disclaimer. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is a link to it.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases. As for pending petitions, since our last update, one new petition was filed in a pro se case; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case; and the Court denied four petitions in patent, trademark, and two more pro se cases. Here are the details.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Arendi S.A.R.L. appealed a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. In an opinion authored by Judge Linn and joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes, the court affirmed the judgment. This is our summary of the opinion.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Court released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia, and the other comes in a government contracts case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. One nonprecedential order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one withdraws a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Eastern District of Texas, and the last order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than dismissals, as well as links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one petition for initial en banc hearing was granted in a case decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board raising questions related to the President’s Article II removal power. Three new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to burden of proving unpatentability in inter partes review proceedings, obviousness, enablement, and written description. One new response brief was filed in a case raising questions related to the domestic industry requirement. Finally, one petition was denied in a case raising a question related to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two new nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals.