FedCircuitBlog

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 a new patent case concerning whether the institution process used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board comports with due process, an argument recap in a patent case addressing standing, and an opinion in a veterans case relating to class certification. Here are the details.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. One vacates an order issued by the Court of Federal Claims and remands the case in view of a recent decision of the Supreme Court related to the constitutionality of a fee increase; one grants an unopposed motion to remand a case to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on an admission by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office of error by the Board; one grants a joint motion to dismiss an appeal; and one dismisses an appeal for failure to prosecute. Here is the text from the 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 about the disagreement between the Fifth Circuit and Federal Circuit over jurisdiction regarding “cases involving the intersection of intellectual property and antitrust law”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s application of assignor estoppel in patent cases after the Supreme Court’s recent decision on point; and
• a third article about a “rar[e] oil and gas production and oilfield services” patent infringement suit.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s denial of motions to terminate and its unpatentability determinations. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District for the District of Columbia Circuit; one summarily affirms; and two dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the orders, 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case raising a question related to inter partes review estoppel; a brief in opposition was submitted in another patent case raising a question related to patent eligibility; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; and two reply briefs were submitted in patent cases addressing so-called “skinny labelling” and the written description requirement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. Two dismiss appeals and one denies a writ of mandamus to remand a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the court received two amicus briefs in support of the officers. The court also received a new petition in a patent case raising a question related to assignor estoppel. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released an erratum. That’s it. Here’s a link to it.

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

• a first article concerning “the importance of adhering to local rules on initial disclosures in Delaware” after the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent case;
• a second article about Apple potentially escaping a $576 million judgment against it in a patent case; and
• a third article discussing the Federal Circuit’s reopening to the public yesterday.

This past Friday, the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Modifications to Court Operations and New Protocols for In-Person Arguments. The court indicated that, in light of recent changes to public health guidance and conditions in the Washington, D.C. area, it will resume normal court operations and reopen the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building to the public, effective today, September 12. The court also issued Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments starting with the October 2022 session. Notably, the court has eliminated any need to test for COVID-19 prior to oral arguments. Moreover, the court will no longer limit the number of people that may attend oral arguments. That said, the court will still require visitors to wear acceptable masks in public areas, regardless of vaccination status. The court indicated it will continue to schedule all oral arguments to be in person, but it will still entertain motions for leave to appear remotely. Here is the full text of the announcement, administrative orders, and a link to the revised protocols for in-person arguments.