FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and one Rule 36 judgment. Both precedential opinions come in appeals in patent infringement cases, while both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and judgment.

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

• a piece outlining factors “behind the Patent Office head’s recent refusal to have the agency institute certain proceedings”;
• an article discussing two recent decisions that “show how parties can navigate the draconian effect of an exclusion order by pursuing the simultaneous paths of a Federal Circuit appeal and ancillary proceedings” at the International Trade Commission and before U.S. Customs & Border Protection “to adjudicate a design-around”;
• a blog post highlighting how a recent filing “shines a spotlight on a structural vulnerability in how post-grant review is functioning in practice”; and
• an article examining “the Federal Circuit’s evolving view of two key trade secrets issues: (1) whether information was readily ascertainable and therefore not a trade secret; and (2) how and when plaintiffs must sufficiently define their trade secrets.”

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one nonprecedential opinion and three Rule 36 judgments. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the judgments and dismissal.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions, another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and three Rule 36 judgments. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.

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

• a blog post arguing the Federal Circuit’s application of the judicial exceptions to patentability for software patents “has resembled less a coherent legal standard and more a series of freely-improvised opinions”;
• an article discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that “composition of matter claims covering engineered cells containing DNA from two different organisms chemically spliced together are not patent-ineligible natural phenomena”;
• a blog post addressing how the repeal of 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) “left an open question that the patent bar has been debating for more than a decade: can incorrect inventorship still be raised as a defense in patent litigation?”; and
• a blog post exploring a recent Federal Circuit decision in which the court “couldn’t determine whether the plaintiff suffered a physical taking of its radio license” because the parties had not adequately briefed whether a federal statute created “a private property right.”

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Volkswagen sought to have the Federal Circuit oder the United States Patent and Trademark Office to vacate its denial of a request for inter partes review. In the order, a panel of the court consisting of Judges Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes denied the petition. This is our summary of the order, which the panel issued per curiam.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in a pro se appeal from decisions of a district court; another comes in an appeal of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals; and the third opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

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, there has been no new activity since our last update. As for pending petitions, since our last update no new petitions have been filed in cases decided by the Federal Circuit; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a patent case addressing sanctions; and four amicus briefs were filed in another patent case addressing prosecution laches. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,while the nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing were filed raising questions related to eligibility and design-patent infringement; the court issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising questions related to obviousness and apportionment of damages; and a response was filed to a petition raising questions related to obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied one petition for en banc rehearing in a Lanham Act case. Here are the details.