FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; one dismisses an appeal for failure to prosecute; and one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Here is the text from the order 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:

• a blog post indicating the Second Circuit signaled agreement with Eighth and Third Circuits with regard to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction;
• an article about “[t]he Federal Circuit rescu[ing] two patents that a lower court canceled in an inventor’s infringement lawsuit against Google LLC”; and
• another article about the Supreme Court “lift[ing] a stay blocking Gilenya generics from launching in the U.S.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s invalidation of patent claims based on subject matter eligibility; notably, Judge Stoll dissented in part. The second comes in another patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit reverses the district court’s finding of invalidity based on indefiniteness; notably, Judge Dyk dissented. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On Friday the Federal Circuit announced that, in addition to its regular session in  Washington, D.C., it will be sitting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for its November 2022 session. For arguments held at area law schools on November 1 and 2, given space limitations students attending the institutions will be given priority to attend. Arguments scheduled for November 3 in Philadelphia will be open to the general public. Audio recordings of each day’s arguments will be available on the court’s website. Here is the full text of the notice.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve 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 an opinion in a takings case, two patent cases with new briefing, one patent case in which one of three appellants voluntarily dismissed its appeal, and three cases (two takings cases and one government contracts case) with upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. 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 a supplemental brief filed at the Supreme Court asking the Court to “clarify the proper standard for reviewing questions of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112”;
• another article about a recent ruling by the Federal Circuit that “gives helpful guidance regarding how to defeat early-filed Section 101 patent subject matter eligibility challenges”; and
• a third article about an upcoming Federal Circuit case that will “address some major design patent issues.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. In its opinion addressing patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of assertions of infringement of two patents and reverses the district’s court’s dismissal of assertions of infringement of two different patents. Notably, Judge Hughes dissented in part. The second opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms a decision that the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links 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 Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; the California Institute of Technology waived its right to respond in a patent case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a takings case; three amicus brief were filed, two in a patent case and one in a case concerning judicial disqualification; and, finally, the Court denied a petition in a challenge to a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the details.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in a veterans case, Arellano v. McDonough, to consider the following questions: 

1. “Does Irwin’s rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling apply to the one-year statutory deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, has the Government rebutted that presumption?”
2. “If 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to equitable tolling, should this case be remanded so the agency can consider the particular facts and circumstances in the first instance?”

In other words, the parties argued for and against the application of equitable estoppel to the one-year filing deadline for retroactive veterans benefits. This is our argument recap.