FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential order, one nonprecedential opinion, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential order denies motions to voluntarily dismiss an appeal in a patent case, while the nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The first nonprecedential order grants a motion seeking transfer to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the second nonprecedential order grants a motion for summary affirmance, and the last three nonprecedential orders were all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the precedential order, opinion, and first two nonprecedential orders, as well as links to the dismissals.

Following the court’s September announcement of proposed amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice, today the Federal Circuit announced that the court “adopted amendments to Federal Circuit Rules of Practice 21, 27, 30, 32, 35, and 40; Practice Notes to Rules 15, 28, 30, 35 and 40; and Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rules Introduction and Rule 5.” As we discussed in September, among other things the court is adding a practice note highlighting how it “prefers that reply briefs respond to the response brief rather than repeating what is in the principal brief” and “favors reply briefs that do not use the full word length when not necessary.” It also is adding a new requirement regarding the table of contents for appendices, requiring the table of contents to identify how the relevant document was designated in the reviewing tribunal (such as the docket or other record number). Here is the full text of today’s announcement with links to, among other things, a summary of the adopted amendments.

On the heels of its recent announcement about the formation of an Intellectual Property Inn of Court located in Charlotte, the Federal Circuit today announced the court “intends to sit in and around Central North Carolina as part of its February 2025 session.” Panels of the court will hear arguments at the University of North Carolina School of Law, Duke University School of Law, and North Carolina Central University School of Law. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion vacates and remands a decision of the Court of Federal Claims in a veterans case. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied a corrective action in an individual right of action appeal. The first order grants a motion seeking transfer to the Western District of Texas. The last two orders were both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first order, 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’s report highlights:

• an article discussing last week’s Senate markup hearing where lawmakers announced that they plan to “delay consideration of both the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (PREVAIL Act)”;
• an article reporting how U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal announced that “she will leave the office in mid-December ahead of the incoming administration of Republican President-Elect Donald Trump”;
• a blog post highlighting an upcoming en banc review by the Federal Circuit that will “address fundamental questions about the reliability standards for expert damages testimony in patent cases”; and
• an article examining the law surrounding patent marking after a recent Federal Circuit decision “seemingly revived a private actor’s right to bring a cause of action for false marking via the unfair competition and false advertising provisions of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied an application for disability retirement benefits. The first order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Eastern District of Texas to vacate an order denying transfer and to transfer the case. The last two orders were both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first order, as well as links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed, two in patent cases and one in a pro se case. In the first patent case, the petition raises a question related to summary affirmances of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the second patent case, the question relates to personal jurisdiction. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted seven amicus briefs. In it, Teva challenges a district court’s injunction requiring it to delist five patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. Judges Prost, Taranto, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. The first opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both orders were dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing how the “Senate Judiciary Committee may consider two important patent laws this week: the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act and the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)”; and
• an article highlighting a petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court “presenting the question of whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) habit of issuing one-word affirmances under Rule 36(a) is prohibited under 35 U.S.C. § 144.”