FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One dismisses an appeal, and one transfers an appeal to the Western District of New York. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and a link to the dismissal.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced that the court no longer requires masks to be worn in the National Courts Building and connected buildings. Chief Judge Moore, along with the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims, issued a joint order that, among other things, rescinds their most recent order regarding health protocols. Here is the full text of yesterday’s order.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, a case that concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. The government appealed the CFC’s judgment, while Ideker Farms cross-appealed. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Taranto. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s preliminary injunction order. The second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s removal of an employee of the Department of Defense. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions.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, and the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment and two nonprecedential orders. One of these orders summarily affirms, and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Last Friday, the Court granted the petition for certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case regarding the enablement requirement. In addition, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in two other pro se cases; and the Court denied two petitions: one in a veterans case and one in a patent case. Notably, Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion dissenting from the decision to deny review in the veterans case. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Behrens v. United States, which involves a claim that the federal government is liable for taking land for public use through the National Trails System Act. In this case, the Behrens appealed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation because the scope of the easement in question was broad enough to encompass railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail. Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to vacate a scheduling order and postpone fact discovery and other substantive proceedings until after consideration of a motion for transfer. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting similar relief. Notably, each order granted a petition filed by Apple Inc. The Federal Circuit also today released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a military case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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 petition for certiorari regarding a Federal Circuit decision addressing patent infringement and “skinny labels” on generic medications;
• another article about “[t]he Federal Circuit reviv[ing] patent licensing company Uniloc’s cases against Google”; and
• a third article about a Federal Circuit oral argument concerning “a Google patent application for parental control content filters.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and four Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

Today the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case raising questions related to the enablement requirement. Although the petitioner requested review of two distinct questions, the Court granted review only for the second question presented. That question asks “[w]hether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” Notably, the Supreme Court granted review of this question despite the contrary view of the Solicitor General. Here are the details.