FedCircuitBlog

Happy Thanksgiving! The Federal Circuit is closed today and did not release any new opinions or orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

As we’ve been reporting, three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in December attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases, Hamill v. Collins, is a veterans case. In it, Hamill appeals a dismissal by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims of his mandamus petition. He urged that court to order the Department of Veterans Affairs to issue an appealable decision readjudicating the character of his discharge, and to certify a class of veterans who received other than honorable discharges and then applied for benefits but received decisions that adjudicated only healthcare eligibility, not including readjudication of the character of their discharges. The lower court dismissed his petition as moot because Hamill received a determination from VA that he had not submitted new and material evidence related to the character of his discharge. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced that it will be closed on Wednesday, December 24, beginning at 1:00 p.m., and Wednesday, December 31, also beginning at 1:00 p.m. The Court said it will also be closed on November 27 and 28, December 25, and January 1. All electronic filing deadlines will remain in effect. Here is the full text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential orders. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases. One comes in an appeal of a judgment of invalidity, and the other comes in an appeal of an award of attorneys’ fees. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. One order grants a motion to vacate a judgment, while the other is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first order and a link to the dismissal.

Three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in December attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Mid Contintent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, a trade case. In it, PT Enterprise Inc. and related Taiwanese nail producers appeal a decision of the Court of International Trade, which sustained findings of the Department of Commerce. In particular, PT Enterprise asks the Federal Circuit to determine whether the Department of Commerce’s differential pricing methodology, which determines whether there is a significant difference between pricing patterns, is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. This is our argument preview.

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

• an article reporting how “President Donald Trump’s administration is working behind the scenes on fallback options if the Supreme Court strikes down one of his major tariff authorities”;
• a blog post discussing “whether amicus briefs matter” in President Trump’s tariff case;
• an article highlighting how Federal Circuit Judge Richard Linn and former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley recently stated “that they believe legislation is the best path to getting more clarity on which inventions are eligible for patents”; and
• a blog post noting the Federal Circuit recently “denied three mandamus petitions asking the court to step in and curb the recently-implemented practice by which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office . . . Director decides whether to institute inter partes review . . . proceedings.”

Three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in December attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., a patent case. In it, LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc. appeal a district court’s grant of summary judgment of eligibility and its order denying judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and no damages.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a dismissal of a complaint against the Patent and Trademark Office. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer patent cases; one transfers a case to a federal district court; the third grants a motion to remand a patent case to a district court; and the last two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first three orders and links to the dismissals.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, Arendi appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. Judges Dyk, Linn, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.