FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post reporting how the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a reply brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Judge Newman;
• a blog post highlighting how “a unanimous court rejected the idea that a generics pharmaceutical manufacturer . . . can be held responsible for infringements of patents held by the branded manufacturer . . . based on the decisions of doctors and pharmacies to use the generic compound for patented uses of the drug”;
• a blog post explaining how, when “[c]onfronted with four patents drawn to the same basic invention, the Federal Circuit held one group of claims ineligible and a second group eligible”; and
• a blog post discussing how “more than a dozen patent matters now sit before the [Supreme] Court.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. One of the opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the orders comes in response to a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the other dismisses an appeal. Here are introductions to the opinions and the first order as well as a link to the dismissal.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit announced a modification to the court’s Internal Operating Procedure. Here is a markup showing how the court changed responsibilities for post-calendar motions:

The action chambers on a post-calendar motion shall be that of the judge who has been assigned the responsibility of authoring, or who has authored the opinion. If a post-calendar motion requires action before hearing, the presiding judge of the merits panel will preassign the opinion-authoring responsibility, subject to reassignment after the hearing if necessary. The authoringAs a general matter, the action judge will decide whether to act alone on a motion or to obtain the views of procedural motions but must notify the other merits panel members (in conference or byof any such ruling. Procedural motions include motions for extensions of time, withdrawal of counsel, and acceptance of papers lacking proper form and content. These motions do not include motions to add counsel which require a vote sheet).of all panel members.

Here is the full text of the announcement.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, since our last update the Court issued its decision. As for pending petitions, no new petitions were filed; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; and two reply briefs were filed in patent cases. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, one dismissing an appeal and one responding to a petition for a writ of mandamus. This morning the court released one nonprecedential opinion, two nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The opinion comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board.  One of the nonprecedential orders comes in response to a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the other dismisses an appeal. Here are introductions to the opinions and orders related to petitions as well as links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new responses were filed in response to a petition raising a question related to correction of inventorship; a citation of supplemental authority was filed in a case related to the Hatch-Waxman Act; and the court denied one petition in another case raising questions related to correction of inventorship. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and two come in response to petitions for review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the summary affirmances.

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

• an article reporting how the “Trump administration said it will appeal a judge’s authority to order across-the-board refunds of all tariffs ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court”;
• a blog post discussing how the “Solicitor General has now filed the government’s brief in opposition in Hyatt v. Squires, . . . urging the Supreme Court to leave the Federal Circuit’s prosecution laches doctrine undisturbed”;
• a blog post suggesting a patent case pending in Texas “is notable” given the patent owner’s argument “that as a matter of law ongoing infringement constitutes irreparable harm, because . . . federal courts are obligated to apply the law of equity as it would have been understood” as of 1789; and
• an article explaining the Federal Circuit’s decision not to hold oral arguments in August is “because infrastructure work is being done on its courthouse.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, OpenSky cross appeals to challenge sanctions issued by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office as part of an inter partes review proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, this case is related to VLSI Technology LLC v. OpenSky Industries, LLC, which was argued in May. Judges Dyk, Linn, and Reyna heard the oral argument last week. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. Two of the opinions come in takings cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the summary affirmance.