FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions, four Rule 36 judgments, and one nonprecedential order. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment in a patent case appealed from the District of Maryland. The second and third affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, links to the Rule 36 judgments, and a link to the dismissal.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website given the federal holiday.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion affirming a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a pro se case. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

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 the Federal Circuit heard “arguments at law schools and courthouses around the San Francisco Bay Area this week”;
• an article highlighting “the intense debate over restoring injunctive relief for patent holders,” noting how “two different camps within the pro-strong-patent rights community have emerged”;
• an article discussing yesterday’s oral argument in a case addressing whether inter partes review proceedings may consider abandoned patent applications published after the filing date of a patent under review; and
• a blog post discussing how the Patent Office “recently terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent use of a practitioner’s signature.”

Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1),” which directs that court to “take due account” of the application of that rule. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms the judgment of the Court of International Trade, which dismissed a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The first nonprecedential opinion vacates judgments of non-infringement and invalidity and reverses an exceptional case finding in a patent case. The second nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal in a pro se case. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation. While no new petitions were filed, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in six patent cases, one takings case, and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first two come in veterans cases. The third comes in federal employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new response to a petition raising questions concerning inducement of infringement and skinny-labeling along with the denial of five petitions raising questions related to issue preclusion and public disclosures under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Here are the details.