FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Bufkin v. Collins, a veterans case. Additionally, an opening merits brief and three amicus briefs in support of the petitioner were submitted in Soto v. United States, another veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, and two new petitions were filed in pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; two replies in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and a case related to Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two amicus briefs were filed in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in a patent case, a trade case, and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Restem appealed a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it failed to prove claims in Jadi Cell’s patent were unpatentable. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Schall and Taranto, affirmed the PTAB’s determination. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a trademark case on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Two new petitions have been filed. One raises questions concerning an appeal related to obviousness, and the other comes in a pro se case. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition raising questions concerning after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements. The court also denied two petitions, one concerning what patents should be listed in the Orange Book and the other concerning the burden of proof regarding enablement in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in pro se cases and the other comes in a vaccine case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, one remands a case and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

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

• an article reporting how last week “the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for writ of certiorari in several appeals involving intellectual property claims”;
• a blog post arguing that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “significantly expands what activities can establish a ‘domestic industry’ under the International Trade Commission’s patent power found in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)”;
• a piece claiming the Federal Circuit recently “indicated . . . that it doesn’t plan to overturn precedent holding that inventors forfeit their patent rights when they cause unreasonable delays in the application process”; and
• a report explaining how Cellspin Soft, Inc. recently petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming the Federal Circuit “wrongly upheld a district court’s decision not to recuse herself before clearing companies including Google LLC unit Fitbit LLC in a patent-infringement suit.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, seven nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one summary affirmance under Rule 36. Of the precedential opinions, two come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, two come in appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and two come in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the summary affirmance.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented from the majority’s holding affirming the Court of International Trade. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case, while the other comes in a veterans case. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. 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:

• a blog post arguing that in a recent case “the Federal Circuit was wrong in affirming the district court’s refusal to enhance damages”;
• a piece likening the current U.S. patent system to the Titanic, asserting it is “fast approaching an iceberg with disaster imminent”;
• a report explaining how the Supreme Court recently “declined to hear a patent owner’s challenge of the court’s framework for analyzing potentially abstract ideas not eligible for patent protection”; and
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit “has refused to revisit its decision forcing Teva Pharmaceuticals to delist certain inhaler patents from the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book.”

Yesterday the Federal Circuit announced that the Federal Circuit Bar Association is hiring an Executive Director. Here is the full text of the announcement.