This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.
- Federal Circuit Clerk’s Office Inaccessible Amidst Protests – Due to mass protests in Washington, D.C., the Federal Circuit clerk’s office was inaccessible for both Monday and Tuesday of this week.
- ‘Pump And Dump’ Victims To Recoup Losses – The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision in Adkins v. U.S. allowing “pump and dump” victims to recoup a two million dollar loss.
- Party May Have Standing with Incorrect Patent Assignment – In Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., the Federal Circuit found a reformation to an incorrect assignment does not deprive a plaintiff of Article III standing.
Here’s the latest.
Breaking News – Federal Circuit Announces Closure of National Courts Building and Cancellation of Tomorrow’s Telephonic Arguments
The Federal Circuit late this evening announced the closure of the National Courts Building and the cancellation of tomorrow’s previously scheduled telephonic arguments. This announcement comes on the heels of two prior announcements this week that the clerk’s office would close in the afternoon and be inaccessible for paper filings. While the court did not explain the closure, besides the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the National Courts Building sits on Lafayette Square, the site of recent protests over police brutality. Here is the text of this evening’s announcement.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential order in a patent case denying a request to award attorneys fees after the appellant moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and three nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases. Here are the introductions to the order and the opinions.
This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- Two new petitions were docketed by the Supreme Court this week. Those cases were B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Facebook, Inc. and Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
- The Supreme Court received four separate replies for the following petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Baley v. United States, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., and (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
- Finally, two new amicus briefs were submitted to the Court this week. The first by the Center for Auto Safety in Callan Campbell v. United States and the second by ACT | The App Association in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
Here are the details.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a tax case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition filed in a case raising a question related to jurisdiction over an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a dismissal agreement in a case raising questions related to vitiation; and the denial of petitions in three cases raising questions related to prosecution history estoppel and the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.
- USTPO Extends Patent and Trademark Deadlines – Due to COVID-19, the USPTO extends the time period to file patent and trademark related documents and provides waivers for certain fees.
- Patent Eligibility Turns on the Content and Not the Length of the Claim – The Federal Circuit emphasized, in Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, the importance of the content of a patent claim over its length in determining eligibility.
- Opinions Vary On Whether the USTPO May Make New Laws Without the Rule-making Process – The issue of whether the USPTO may properly make law using its procedural and POP process or whether the rules may only be made under the APA process is yet to be decided.
Here’s the latest.