FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court affirmed the Board’s invalidity determination. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument Marmen Inc. v. United States, a trade case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final antidumping duty determination that assigned a dumping margin on Marmen, a Canadian wind tower producer. Judges Prost, Taranto, and Chen heard oral argument. This is our argument recap.

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

• a blog post suggesting reasons for the ”the prevalence of filing errors and subsequent correction requirements in Federal Circuit appeals–even among the nation’s most sophisticated appellate practitioners”;
• a report covering how Chief Judge Moore “told the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Thursday that Judge Pauline Newman’s appeal of her effective removal from the [Federal Circuit] should fail because her claims do not meet the ‘exceptional circumstances’ warranted for transfer to another circuit and her constitutional challenges are precluded”;
• an article asking whether the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo will “chip away at Federal Circuit Rule 36 summary affirmances” or even “offer a path for [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] appellants to circumvent Rule 36 altogether”; and
• a piece highlighting how the Supreme Court granted certiorari Friday to “review whether the government need only pay six years of unpaid combat-related special compensation if a veteran files a claim.”

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari presented in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. The Supreme Court indicated it will consider the following question: “Given the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim ‘involving . . . retired pay’ under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(l)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?” What follows the break is the relevant background and question presented by Soto’s counsel.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board as well, with one of them appealed pro se. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a petition to appeal a case from the Court of Federal Claims, one denies a similar petition, two deny petitions for writs of mandamus, and two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and all of the orders other than the dismissals, which are simply linked.

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

• a news alert reporting how “Dish Network LLC asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether courts can require attorneys to pay legal fees in exceptionally frivolous patent cases”;
• a blog post analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision where the central issue in the case “revolved around the interpretation of [35 U.S.C.] § 311(b)’s limitation that [inter partes review] challenges may be based only on ‘prior art consisting of patents or printed publications’”; and
• an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision “canceling trademarks claiming protection for the pink color of ceramic hip components.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the nonprecedential orders denies a petition for the Court of International Trade to effect service of process on a foreign company, while the other dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and first order and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent 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, six new petitions were filed in two patent cases, a trade case, and three pro se cases. The Court also received waivers of the right to respond in two pro se cases, a brief in opposition in a veterans case, two replies in support of petitions in a patent case and a veterans case, and an amicus brief in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, two Rule 36 summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se veterans case. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to summary affirmances and dismissals.