FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent infringement case and reverses a finding of patent ineligibility. Two of the three nonprecedential opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• a piece indicating that, “[f]or businesses awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s tariffs, the next three chances for a decision will be Feb. 20, Feb. 24 and Feb. 25”;
• an article suggesting that, “[e]ven as small businesses wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on President Donald Trump’s tariff authority, . . . uncertainty around import duties will continue”;
• an article identifying “a number of trends” related to petitions and decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit and correlating “those trends to concurrent developments in the biopharma industry and legal landscape”; and
• a blog post discussing “whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . or the Central Reexamination Unit . . . at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent infringement case, and the key claim at issue in the dispute was a means-plus-function limitation. One of the nonprecedential opinions also comes in another patent infringement case; the other nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Supreme Court set a date for oral argument in a patent case; a new petition was filed in a patent case addressing expert witness testimony and the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed; a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a takings case; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case addressing appellate procedure. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Bee v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, William Bee appeals the denial of his request to have his military records reflect medical retirement rather than voluntary separation. Judges Reyna, Clevenger, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Two of the opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board involving the same parties; the other two opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board also involving the same parties. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases that raised questions related to claim construction and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Federal Circuit also invited a response to a petition raising questions about unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument in Ligado Networks LLC v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the United States appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, arguing it erred by exercising jurisdiction over the case and treating a license from the Federal Communications Commission as property under the takings clause. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Taranto, and Judge Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. One of the opinions comes in a patent infringement case; the other comes in an appeal of a judgment of the Court of International Trade in a trade case. One of the orders grants the government’s motion for a summary affirmance in an appeal of final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims; the other is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first order and a link to the dismissal.