FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions in separate cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the first precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Veterans Court’s denial of a request to exclude certain payments in calculating a veteran’s non-service-connected pension. In the second precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Veterans Court’s conclusion that a veteran is barred from receiving reimbursement for specific medical treatment. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer an appeal from the Western District of Texas to the Eastern District of Michigan. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This past Friday, the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice. The court proposes to amend eight Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and the Practice Notes to four rules. If adopted, the amendments would take effect on March 1, 2023. While there are many proposed amendments, as a highlight, proposed changes include requiring service of a paper copy of each brief and appendix on opposing counsel “unless counsel deems it unnecessary.” Friday’s notice also indicates the court “may also implement” previously proposed amendments that the court later deferred. Here is the full text of Friday’s announcement, a summary of the most recent proposed amendments, and links to the redlined copy and a clean copy of the most recent proposed amendments. Note that public comments in response to Friday’s proposed amendments must be received by the Clerk of Court on or before February 21.

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 the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Solicitor General “to provide its views on [a] petition asking the High Court to clarify the proper application of estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• an article about the Federal Circuit rejecting a “claim that the U.S. Supreme Court has implicitly overruled key design patent validity tests”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision that “overturned an earlier decision that would have allowed veterans to receive up to an additional year of education.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that a patent is unenforceable based on prosecution laches. Notably, Judge Stark filed a dissenting opinion. The two nonprecedential opinions come in separate patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal, both involving the same parties. In each opinion, Judge Lourie filed additional views and Judge Stark filed a concurring opinion, both addressing the argument the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s approach to obviousness with respect to design patents. Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released six nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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 how a “Federal Circuit panel . . . seemed wary that . . . large companies used a roundabout way to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Fintiv policy”;
• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding that two patents “for remote education and training systems is patent ineligible”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit upholding a lower court’s decision related to Amazon.com Inc.’s virtual assistant Alexa.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

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, although no new petitions were filed, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case related to inter partes review estoppel. Here are the details. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released five Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to the terms of a protective order. The court also denied a petition in a case raising questions related to claim construction at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order in a veterans case denying a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, and four other judges joined his opinion. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions, the first in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second in a patent case addressing patent eligibility appealed from the District of Massachusetts; and the third in another patent case involving the same patent and appealed from the Northern District of California. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here is text from the order, the introductions to the opinions, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.