FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the court issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, six amicus briefs were filed in George v. McDonough, a case raising a question related to clear and unmistakable error in the context of review of denials of veterans’ claims for benefits. As for still-pending petitions, one new petition was filed by a pro se petitioner; two amicus briefs were filed in a case related to patent eligibility, including a brief filed by a former Federal Circuit judge; and two reply briefs were filed: one in a veterans case and one in a trade case. Finally, four waivers of right to respond were filed and the Court denied a petition in a case concerning patent eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a precedential order granting two petitions for writ of mandamus against the Western District of Texas to dismiss or transfer cases. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order 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 assignments of patents and standing and a new response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. The court also requested a reply from a petitioner in support of its combined petition, which raised questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court denied two petition raising questions related to the standard of review for a grant or denial of a preliminary injunction and claim construction. Here are the details.

Congress created the Federal Circuit in 1982 at least in part to promote uniformity in patent law. At that time, patent law was in disarray, the result of different interpretations of patent law by the various federal appellate courts. The problem that the creation of the Federal Circuit attempted to solve was the fact that the Supreme Court was not resolving these circuit splits in U.S. patent law. But the Supreme Court’s failure to resolve circuit splits regarding differing interpretations of patent law was not always the problem highlighted by advocates for a national patent court, and this particular problem might not even exist today in the absence of the Federal Circuit given the Supreme Court’s recent, renewed interest in deciding patent cases. So, what have been the historical justifications for a national patent court, and what justification might exist today for the Federal Circuit?

In February, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. On appeal, the parties presented arguments concerning whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly construed certain claims, correctly found certain claim elements in the prior art, whether its analysis of secondary considerations of non-obviousness was correct, and whether the Board correctly found substitute claims to be patentable. Former Chief Judge Paul R. Michel filed an amicus brief encouraging the court to take the time to clarify the court’s law regarding the non-obviousness requirement, while US Inventor, Inc. also filed an amicus brief arguing the Board disregarded industry praise in finding that the claims were obvious. Judge Taranto authored a unanimous opinion on behalf of himself and Judges Lourie and Schall affirming the Board’s judgments. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that its clerk’s office was awarded a certification for operational efficiencies by the American Society for Quality (ASQ). In the announcement the Federal Circuit applauds the clerk’s office for reducing internal processing times for cases. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in consolidated patent cases appealed from the International Trade Commission and Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “affirmed the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)’s determination that [a] civil penalty . . . did not require modification or rescission following the subsequent invalidation of the asserted [patent] claims”;
• another article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit upheld an administrative patent tribunal’s decision invalidating some parts of a patent related to infrastructure for hydraulic fracking”;
• yet another an article assessing the “impact of [the Federal Circuit’s] TRUMP trademark ruling”; and
• an last article detailing how “[t]he federal court in Delaware has instituted revised procedures to reassign Judge Leonard P. Stark’s busy caseload as he gets ready to join the Federal Circuit.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit addressed a finding by the Court of Federal Claims that a lawsuit seeking a refund on paid taxes was not timely filed. Here is the introduction to the opinion.