FedCircuitBlog

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This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal.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.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, two Rule 36 judgments, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. All three precedential opinions come in patent cases: one reviews an order holding asserted claims indefinite; another addresses the eligibility of asserted claims; and a third reviews a finding of a firm’s conflict of interest. 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 links to the judgments and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced temporary inaccessibility of the courthouse to the public due to an incident in the vicinity of the National Courts Building. Shortly later, the court announced that access to the National Courts Building was restored. Here is the full text of the two announcements.

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 in patent cases raising questions related to eligibility, the presumption of validity, and de minimis infringement. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions, one Rule 36 judgment, and one errata. All three opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgment and errata.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Christensen v. United States, a second tax case from March’s argument week that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the United States is appealing a decision of the Court of Federal Claims allowing two American citizens residing in France to claim a foreign tax credit. Judges Chen, Hughes, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.