FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential orders and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential orders comes in a government contract case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and the other comes in a takings case appealed from the court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential orders transfers a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Eastern District of Virginia, and the other transfers a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Eastern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit announced a ticket release for the Federal Circuit Center for Innovation & Law’s America250 event. Here is the full text of the update:

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

• a blog post discussing how a recent “concurrence . . . provides more structure to the ‘skilled searcher conducting a diligent search’ estoppel test” related to inter partes review proceedings;
• an article highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit decision “suggests that plaintiffs may not have the final word” on whether “trade secret plaintiffs can try to channel cases into other courts of appeals by strategically withholding patent claims”;
• a blog post covering how the USPTO “issued a notice designating as precedential a Sua Sponte Director Review Order of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . decision granting institution in three inter partes review . . . proceedings”; and
• an article noting how, for “one day in July, Washingtonians will get access to an under-the-radar building steps away from the White House that’s filled with artifacts spanning American history.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential orders. One denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Western District of Texas, one grants a petition to remand a case to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, one grants summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one transfers a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the District of Maryland, one grants summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one transfers a case appealed from the District of New Mexico to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and, lastly, one transfers a case appealed from the Central District of California to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Here are the introductions to the orders.

Here is an update on activity in patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted 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 three recent opinions in cases raising questions related to patent eligibility, Article III standing, and infringement; one newly identified case raising a question related to infringement that attracted three amicus briefs; one recent oral argument in a case that raised questions related to sanctions, one new response brief in a case that raised questions related to patent eligibility, and one new principal and response brief in a case that raised questions related to sanctions and obviousness. Here are the details.

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.