FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals.

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

• a blog post discussing how, “[s]ince the institution of inter parte review . . . proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2012, parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board and district courts have become somewhat commonplace”; and
• a report analyzing how “[r]ecent administrations have conducted several investigations into whether various foreign practices are actionable . . . under Section 301 [of the Trade Act of 1974], . . . one of a number of statutes those administrations have used to impose tariffs on various U.S. imports.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a case involving sanctions appealed form the Central District of Illinois, and the other opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. One of the nonprecedential orders summarily affirms an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in response to a patent case appealed form the International Trade Commission, two come in response to petitions to review final decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than dismissals, as well as links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, four new petitions were filed in a patent case, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board, and two pro se cases, and four waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in response to a petition to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in response to a petition to review an arbitrator’s decision, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the petitioner’s brief was filed in the only pending en banc case, which raises questions related to the President’s Article II powers and the Civil Service Reform Act. As for petitions, one new petition was filed raising questions related to appellate procedure and a motion to transfer. Finally, one petition was denied in a case raising several questions related to attorney’s fees. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released seven nonprecedential opinions. Four come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; one comes in response to a petition for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; one comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of California; and one comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.

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

• an article noting how “[s]everal U.S. senators expressed strong support at a hearing Tuesday for a bill aimed at expanding which inventions are eligible for patents, while others appeared to have reservations about the potential effect of the proposed changes on healthcare costs”;
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “reaffirmed its understanding that so-called ‘book of wisdom’ evidence can be used in estimating the hypothetical bargain the parties would have negotiated as of the date of infringement, but not to alter the terms of the bargain they would have struck in view of ex post evidence”;
• a blog post highlighting how a “unanimous opinion authored by Judge Hughes affirmed” fixing “the government’s liability for infringing . . . through a hypothetical negotiation rather than simply using the rates in the parties’ prior license”; and
• a blog post suggesting risk to patent rights created using artificial intelligence “almost never comes from the AI model’s involvement.”

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dougherty Electric, Inc. v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Dougherty Electric appealed a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a tax refund suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Lourie and Taranto, the court affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the case. This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.