FedCircuitBlog

Today the Federal Circuit announced that access to the National Courts Building Complex will continue to be limited to court staff through February 28. The court did, however, also indicate that requests for building access may be submitted and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Here is the text of today’s announcement, which includes a link to the relevant court order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

• ITC Cases Mean No Agency Patent Review for Nintendo, SK Innovation – Applying the NHK-Fintiv factors, the Patent Trial and Review Board refused to review Nintendo’s challenge to a video game controller patent.
• Supreme Court Will Review Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel – The Supreme Court granted certiorari last Friday in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc., on appeal from the Federal Circuit. The case asks the justices to resolve whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.

Here’s the latest.

Late this afternoon the Federal Circuit announced that it has updated its Guide for Oral Argument. These updates include the designation of “Access Coordinators” to facilitate the ability of those who have communication difficulties to participate in the court’s proceedings. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a vaccine case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new amicus brief was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance in a case that has been granted certiorari, United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• The Court received eight new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new reply briefs were filed with the Court in the following cases: (1) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., (2) Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc., and (3) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC.
• One new amicus brief was filed in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation by Jonathan Stroud
• Three new waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in ten cases.

Here are the details.

This afternoon the Federal Circuit announced that it has adopted new procedures for the handling of what it is calling “highly sensitive documents.” The court indicated it is doing so given “recent disclosures of widespread breaches of both private sector and government computer systems.” Notably, the court indicated it will treat these documents “outside of the court’s electronic case filing system.” Moreover, it will adjust not only how it will handle documents filed in the future, but also how it will handle highly sensitive documents that already have been electronically filed both in pending and even closed cases. Here is the text of today’s announcement, which includes links to the related order and modified Electronic Filing Procedures, along with a summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a veterans case, one in a government contract case, and one in a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Today the Federal Circuit announced modified procedures for nonelectronic filing and submissions for the time period of January 13 through January 20. This time period coincides with preparations for Inaugural Day on January 20. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court scheduled oral argument in a en banc veterans case. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. Highlights in pending en banc petitions in patent cases include a new petition raising questions related to enablement and claim construction; a petition and an invitation for response in a case raising a question related to injunctive relief; a response to a petition raising a question related to venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and denials of four petitions raising questions related to intervention in inter partes review, claim construction, and due process. Here are the details.