FedCircuitBlog

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued a notice of Limited CM/ECF Availability on Friday, April 7, 2023 through Sunday, April 9, 2023. In it, the court announced that the court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) will be unavailable between Friday, April 7, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern) through Sunday, April 9, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern). Here is the full text of the announcement.

Five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, a trade case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of International Trade that the “President’s authority to modify a safeguard measure under 19 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B) is limited solely to ‘trade-liberalizing’ modifications, and that Proclamation 10101 thus went beyond the President’s statutory authority.” This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. In the first order, the court granted a motion for summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the second order, the Federal Circuit granted a motion for remand in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the third order dismissed an appeal. Here is text from the first two orders and a link to the dismissal.

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

• an article about a Federal Circuit decision “that affirmed the right of patent owners to make good faith allegations of patent infringement under the U.S. First Amendment”;
• another article about a ban on “imports of SharkNinja Operating LLC robot vacuums that infringe a patent owned by Roomba maker iRobot Corp”; and
• a third article discussing “three high-profile intellectual property cases” that “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. In the first order, the court granted a petition to transfer an appeal from the Southern District of California to the Ninth Circuit. The other three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here is text from the order transferring the appeal and links to the dismissals.

Here is another update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions for patent cases and another that addresses jurisdiction. We also highlight four new cases (a contract case, a trade case, a takings case, and a tax case), all of which are set to be argued next month, along with a patent case. Additionally, we highlight an argument recap in patent case. Here are the details.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a case addressing patent law’s enablement requirement. The Supreme Court granted review to consider the following question: “Whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion. In it, the court affirmed a judgment in a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, Judge Mayer dissented. Here are the introductions to the majority and dissenting opinions.

The Federal Circuit heard oral argument earlier this month in FS.COM Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the ITC that Panduit Corp. and The Siemon Company infringed certain patents and The Siemon Company and FS.com Inc. infringed one patent. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Hughes. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Vidal. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by a district court that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precluded judicial review of certain factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Lourie and Stoll, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. This is our opinion summary.