FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, three new petitions have been filed, and two previously filed petitions have been denied. The first new petition raises a question related to Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the patent has already expired; the second raises a question regarding whether a court can rule on a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of a patent after ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing; and the third raises a question concerning collateral estoppel related to a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The two denied petitions came in a pro se case and in an appeal related to obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals.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:

• a blog post discussing how a recent decision in a patent case by the Federal circuit focuses “on a novel argument about provisional rights”;
• another blog post discussing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “illustrates circumstances under which the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board’s obviousness determination did not pass muster.”;
• a piece reporting how the Council for Innovation Promotion recently released a report “urging the Trump Administration and Congress to take 18 key steps to strengthen the U.S. IP system”; and
• a report claiming a recent Federal Circuit decision “has created pitfalls for entities using a type of patent claim that describes an improvement on previous technology, making the so-called Jepson format, which is already uncommon, even less appealing for applicants.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one summary affirmance. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in trademark cases on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, while the other two come in pro se cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one summary affirmance. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The lone nonprecedential order deconsolidates a set of appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order and summary affirmance. 

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

• an article noting how the Federal Circuit recently held oral argument in a case asking “whether prosecution laches is a legitimate doctrine that can render any patent unenforceable if it takes longer than six years to obtain the patent from the United States Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “issued a significant trade secret remedies decision”;
• a report highlighting a recent Federal Circuit trademark case holding that “acquired distinctiveness is ‘determined on the entire record’”; and
• a piece asserting a recent Federal Circuit trademark decision ”goes beyond financial services and has implications for brands across industries.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, one sua sponte vacating a preliminary injunction and the other dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer a case out of the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas to the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas; four nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases; two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals; and two summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the nonprecedential order vacating the preliminary injunction, and the precedential order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, along with links to the summary affirmances and dismissals. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court. With respect to granted cases, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. While no new petitions were filed, one new reply in support of a petition was filed in Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case addressing the on-sale bar. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States, a government contract case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Textron appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or in the alternative for summary judgment. In particular, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Textron’s claim as time-barred under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Judges Prost and Clevenger, affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that Textron’s claim had accrued by early 2013 and was untimely when filed in 2020. This is our opinion summary.

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