FedCircuitBlog

Happy Halloween! Yesterday afternoon, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, both of which were dismissals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases, while the third comes in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner filed his reply brief in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed. One comes in a patent case raising questions related to summary judgment and Rule 36 summary affirmances. The other comes in a pro se case. Finally, one new reply in support of a petition was filed in another patent case raising a question related to the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

As we have highlighted, three cases scheduled to be argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a case involving a taking claim. In this case, ATS Ford Drive Investment appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the government. This is our argument preview.

Yesterday afternoon, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order that dismissed a patent case. This morning the Federal Circuit did not post any opinions or orders. Here is a link to yesterday’s dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to the Federal Circuit’s review of the grant of a motion for attorneys’ fees. Additionally, the court invited a response to a petition raising questions regarding the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. Finally, the court denied a petition presenting a question regarding the effect of a remand overturning a holding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on which a patent owner relied in drafting amended claims. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. The first nonprecedential order denies a petition for writ of mandamus in a patent case. The second grants a motion to withdraw a mandamus position. The last two are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the first two orders 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 suggesting that, “although pursuit of an appeal to the Federal Circuit may under some circumstances prove to be quicker and less expensive, appeals to district courts are becoming increasingly attractive” ;
• an article discussing a recent petition in which an “owner of an invalidated background-check software patent urged the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the Federal Circuit’s suspension of 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman, whose absence on the court the company says deprived it of a potentially sympathetic ear”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision “holding that conclusory expert testimony is insufficient even for relatively simple technologies.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case and the second nonprecedential opinion appeals a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC. In it, Restem appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding that found challenged claims not unpatentable. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight one new opinion in a case raising a question related to se advertising counterclaims under the Lanham Act; two new cases, one a takings case and another a patent case; and new briefing in a case raising questions related to whether a district court erred in denying a motion to intervene and to unseal court records. Here are the details.