FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to cases with pending petitions, one new petition was filed by a pro se petitioner; the government filed a waiver of right to respond in another case submitted by a pro se petitioner; and another pro se petitioner submitted his reply brief. Finally, the government submitted the views of the United States in two patent cases: one raising questions about eligibility and another raising a question about standing. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. One dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, subject to reinstatement; one dismisses an appeal for failure to prosecute; and one grants a voluntary motion to dismiss. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Memmer v. United States, a takings case in which Memmer appeals a decision by the Court of Federal Claims concerning a Notice of Interim Trail Use issued by the Surface Transportation Board. In the appeal, Memmer challenges the lower court’s analysis of causation as well as its decision that “the duration of the taking lasted as long as the railroad’s abandonment authority existed.” The United States cross-appeals to argue that the lower court “erred in holding that Indiana Southwestern would have abandoned if the NITU had not issued.” One amicus brief was filed in support of Memmer. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed the government’s opening brief. As for pending petitions, the United States motioned for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause; the court invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations in patent claims; the court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings; and the court received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in one of the petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to remand to an arbitrator; one dismisses an appeal; and one grants a motion to remand to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is text from the orders.

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

• an article explaining how the Supreme Court is the “only entity that appears positioned to provide . . . clarity” on patent eligibility;
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit affirmed the review power of the temporary head of the Patent and Trademark Office, “sparing the agency from potentially devastating consequences”; and
• a third article addressing how the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that a patentee has “the burden to offer opposing evidence against the petitioner’s claim” in Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today given the Memorial Day holiday.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Thaler v. Vidal. Thaler is the developer, user, and owner of DABUS, an artificial intelligence system that created the two inventions at issue without the assistance of a human inventor. In this case, Thaler seeks review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, deciding that “an artificial intelligence machine cannot be an ‘inventor’ under the Patent Act.” This is our argument preview.

This week–one year and three weeks after the Supreme Court’s order inviting the Solicitor General to express the views of the United States–the Solicitor General finally filed its amicus brief in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC. In this case, the petitioner long ago requested the Supreme Court grant review to reconsider the appropriate standard for determining patent eligibility and to determine whether eligibility is a question of law or fact. This week the Solicitor General recommended the Court grant review to reconsider the first question presented, addressing the appropriate standard for determining eligibility. Here is an update on the case, including a review of the background of the case, a summary of the government’s brief, and a brief discussion of what comes next.