FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post explaining how a company that was “denied institution on three inter partes review (IPR) petitions . . . could not simply ‘repackage’ arguments raised in its IPR petition to challenge the same patent via ex parte reexamination”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit keeps on laying down rules of the road for U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas when it comes to transferring cases to California”;
• a post discussing whether a recent Federal Circuit opinion “may be hinting that willful blindness isn’t enough, by itself, for willful [patent] infringement”; and
• another blog post noting tension between how the Federal Circuit reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and its own practice with respect to Rule 36 summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four precedential opinions: two in patent cases appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and one in an international trade case appealed from the U.S. Court of International Trade. The court also released a nonprecedential order requiring the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order, and a link to the erratum.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. Here’s what you need to know. The court will convene 15 panels to consider about 66 cases. Notably, none of this week’s cases attracted any amicus briefs. Of the 66 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 50, and the court will continue hearing oral arguments in person. Here is a list of this week’s cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed in the Court of Federal Claims, addressing arguments that the destruction of firearms under new federal statutes constituted a government taking. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion addressing the same issue. Notably, Judge Wallach concurred only in the result in both cases. Finally, the court issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case granting a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to vacate an order transferring the case from its Austin Division to its Waco Division. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court addressed the Board’s determination that a petition for inter partes review and a reply brief were insufficient on their merits. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, however, five new petitions have been filed with the Court: one in a veterans case, three in patent cases, and one filed by a pro se petitioner. As for previously filed petitions, one supplemental brief and two waivers of right to respond were filed. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion resulted from an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and in the opinion the court addressed when ex parte reexamination is available to a requester who has already made the same arguments in an inter partes review proceeding. The second precedential opinion resulted from an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and in the opinion the court addressed issues related to government contract claims. The nonprecedential opinion resulted in another appeal from the PTAB. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, a new brief was filed. As for requests for rehearing en banc, the court received a new petition raising a question relating to the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of non-obviousness in patent cases. The court also received an amicus brief supporting rehearing to address the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court denied petitions for rehearing in two other patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The opinion addresses issues related to willful infringement, enhanced damages, and attorney fees. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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

• an article predicting how a recent Federal Circuit decision [will] likely provide a route for judges and plaintiffs in patent cases to circumvent an international treaty that creates hurdles when serving complaints on foreign defendants”;
• an article analyzing “the unsettled and contentions nature of [patent] infringement in the skinny-label context”; and
• an article report discussing how last week the Federal Circuit issued an order “forcing U.S. District Judge Alan Albright to move [a] patent dispute . . . from his court in Waco, Texas, . . . to Northern California.”