FedCircuitBlog

This morning and late yesterday the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three orders dismissing appeals. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from Southern District of Texas that was dismissed for failure to state a claim. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court recently granted the motion of the Solicitor General leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the pending patent case addressing the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a pro se case and another in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a trade case; one amicus brief was filed in a trademark case and three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case (including, interestingly, an amicus brief on behalf of retired federal appellate judges); and the Court denied six petitions in various patent, veterans, and pro se cases. Here are the details. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions.  In the first, the court affirmed a military case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the second, the Federal Circuit dismissed a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court issued a long-awaited opinion last week in an employment case addressing the question of whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to claim construction and denied a petition in a case raising a question related to the terms of a protective order. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided Adams v. United States, an employment case we have been following since the court scheduled an en banc hearing. The case presents the question of the relationship between COVID-19 and Hazardous Duty Pay (HDP) and Environmental Differential Pay (EDP) regulations, and in particular whether prison guards who come into contact with COVID-19 through either human to human contact or human contaminated mediums are entitled to EDP or HDP. Last week, the court issued a majority opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claims, which held that OPM’s regulations do not provide for HDP and EDP for working with or in proximity to individuals infected with COVID-19. According to the Federal Circuit, these veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits. Two judges dissented, however, arguing for reversal. Here is our summary of these opinions.

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

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding “an isolated form of vitamin B3″ to be “unpatentable subject matter under Section 101”;
• an article about Optis Cellular urging the Federal Circuit “not to reverse a Texas federal jury’s nine-figure infringement judgment against Apple, Inc.”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit “reviv[ing] a long-running infringement lawsuit Bard brought against Pennsylvania-based Medical Components Inc.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. In the first, the court vacated a preliminary injunction and remanded a patent case appealed from the District of Nebraska. In the second, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims.  In the third, the Federal circuit affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Tennessee. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. In the first, the court reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded a patent case appealed from the District of Utah. In the second, the Federal Circuit affirmed another judgment in a patent case, this one appealed from the Southern District of Indiana. Here are the introduction to the opinions.

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

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision “clarifying the requirements for the disclosure of technology that is ready for patenting at a public event to qualify as being ‘in public use’”;
• an article about a Federal Circuit ruling finding “federal workers are generally not entitled to extra pay for being exposed to COVID-19 through their jobs”; and
• another article about the ramifications of “US Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal’s reinstatement of two companies she’d removed from high-profile [inter partes review] patent challenges.”

The Federal Circuit recently issued its opinion in Doyon v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs in favor of Doyon. In the case, Doyon appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a decision by the Board for the Correction of Naval Records to deny an application to correct discharge records. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Newman and Linn, however, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims and remanded the case with instructions. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion affirming a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and link to the dismissal.