FedCircuitBlog

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.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the district court’s decision to dismiss the case for lack of standing and dismissed in part the portion of the appeal regarding attorney fees. Here is text from the opinion.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Uniloc appeals a district court’s decision to dismiss its patent infringement action. In particular, Uniloc challenges the district court’s ruling that a license precluded Article III standing because the patent holder no longer held all of the patent’s exclusionary rights. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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 the “plunge by nearly one-fifth” of patent related filings in Texas federal courts;
• another article about whether the Federal Circuit considers research tools to be covered by safe harbor provisions in the Hatch Waxman Act; and
• a blog post about personal jurisdiction in patent infringement cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia; the second comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; and the third comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, in the trade case, Judge Newman dissented. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, the District of South Carolina, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, respectively. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, a link to the dismissal, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The only activity to report is that one new petition was filed by a pro se petitioner. Here are the details.

This past Friday, the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice. The court proposes to amend several Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and the Practice Notes to three rules. If adopted, the amendments would take effect on December 1, 2022. While there are many proposed amendments, as a highlight, some of the proposed changes include excluding inside front cover contents from word counts, requiring parties to file argument scheduling conflict notices even in the absence of conflicts, decreasing required number of paper copies, and creating an expanded notice requirement when there are related cases in other tribunals to provide the court with additional information on participating parties, firms, and attorneys. Here is the full text of the announcement, a summary of the proposed amendments, and links to a redlined copy and clean copy of the proposed amendments. Also note that public comments in response to the proposed amendments must be received by the Clerk of Court on or before October 3, 2022.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint under the duplicative-litigation doctrine. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second opinions come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the third comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.