FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. And the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and 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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, most notably the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief expressing the view of the United States that the Court should grant review in two patent cases. No new petitions were filed, but the government waived its right to respond to two petitions and a party filed a supplemental brief in response to the Solicitor General’s amicus brief recommending the Court grant review in a patent case raising a question about so-called skinny labelling. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. In the first two precedential opinions, the court affirmed judgments of the Central District of California and District of Delaware in patent cases. In the third precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of the District of Delaware in another patent case. In the fourth precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed, vacated, and remanded a judgment of the Northern District of Georgia in still another patent case. In the fifth precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Court of International Trade. In the nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to prosecution laches, invited a response to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility, and received three amicus briefs supporting rehearing in two cases raising the same questions related to non-obviousness of designs under design patent law. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the nonprecedential opinions, the court affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board and vacated in part and affirmed in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus to order transfer in a patent case and granted a motion to dismiss an appeal in another patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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 a recent Federal Circuit opinion addressing copyright law; and
• another blog post identifying “many improvements to [the] drafting and prosecuting of patent applications [that] can be made by both the applicants and examiners to provide more certainty to the validity of issued patents.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion and three Rule 36 judgments. In the opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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

• an article about the Federal Circuit finding that “Apple can’t reach back through history and apply the Beatles’ Apple Corps mark . . . to protect a broad category of live events and recordings”; and
• another article about how “[t]he Federal Circuit has clarified how courts should determine when accused patent infringers are barred from making invalidity arguments they didn’t include in an earlier [inter partes review] challenge.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the opinions, the court affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California; affirmed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims; affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board; affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and affirmed another judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals, Rule 36 judgment, and erratum.

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

• an article about the recent Federal Circuit decision that “vacated a $576 million judgment against Apple”; and
• a blog post about the Solicitor General’s recent “amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court advising it to grant Teva Pharmaceuticals’ petition for writ of certiorari.”