FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced that it will close at 2:00 p.m. Eastern today due to inclement weather. Here is the full text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders granting motions to withdraw appeals. The first opinion comes in an appeal of a dismissal of a patent infringement case for lack of constitutional standing. The second comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims. The third comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In it, REGENXBIO appealed a decision of the District of Delaware, which granted a motion for summary judgment and held the asserted claims to be ineligible for patenting. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our summary of the panel’s opinion.

The Federal Circuit did not release any new opinions or orders today on its website.

Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit court heard oral argument in Titanium, LLC v. Zspec Design LLC, a trademark case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Titanium appeals a denial by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of its petition to cancel Zspec Design’s trademark registration. Chief Judge Moore and Judges Cunningham and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

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

• an article discussing how the “skinny label” patent case at the Supreme Court ”has the potential to elucidate for how far induced infringement” can reach;
• an article reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires in an agency memo “added to the list of scenarios under which his office can strike down patent validity challenges in order to ‘protect American manufacturers and small business’”;
• a blog post observing how, “[u]nder today’s [utility] patent system, inventors are only allowed to procure one type of patent,” and arguing “this restriction oppresses the American inventor”; and
• a commentary suggesting the Supreme Court’s tariff decision unravels “some . . . deeper themes and fault lines that the Court will grapple with in the future.”

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Squires, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Apple appealed a judgment of the Northern District of California, which rejected challenges to instructions issued by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding discretionary denials of petitions for inter partes review proceedings. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Lourie and Chen, the panel affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims; the other 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, since our last update five amicus briefs were filed that support neither party. As for pending petitions, since our last update three new petitions were filed in a patent case, a takings case, and a case addressing use of Federal Circuit Rule 36. In addition, a waiver of the right to respond a petition was filed in a pro se case, a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a patent case, and the Supreme Court denied a petition in another patent case. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hamill v. Collins, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, Mr. Hamill appealed an order dismissing his petition after the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concluded his petition was moot and that no exception to mootness applied. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Chen and Stark, the panel vacated the order and remanded the case for the lower court to reconsider a question related to mootness. This is our summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.