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 discussing how “[c]ourts continue to struggle with their use of evidence for claim construction” in patent cases;
• an article detailing how the “Senate’s April 5 confirmation of Winston & Strawn partner Kathi Vidal means the agency can finally make movement on pressing policy issues that have been in limbo while the leadership post remained vacant for more than a year”; and
• another article analyzing how the the Federal Circuit recently “criticized, but left intact, limits on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can devise reasons to reject requests to amend patents.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Minnesota addressing numerous issues concerning validity and infringement. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential opinions in patent, tax, and employment cases. Notably, in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion. Finally, the court issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

In March, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Wolfe v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs asked the Federal Circuit to reverse the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which “granted a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Wolfe on behalf of a class of claimants to invalidate 38 C.F.R. § 17.1005(a)(5) and require [the Department of Veterans Affairs] to readjudicate and grant claims for reimbursement of coinsurance and deductibles.” In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Reyna and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The case addresses issues related to direct infringement and inducement of infringement. Notably, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in employment and government contract cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Federal Claims respectively. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed its merits brief in George v. McDonough, which concerns the scope of clear and unmistakable error in the context of veterans’ claims. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a case presenting a question related to Article III standing for patent licensees; a brief in opposition was submitted in a case raising questions related to patent eligibility; and reply briefs were filed in two patent cases: one raising questions related to inter partes review and one raising questions concerning enablement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis and transferring the case from the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Northern District of Texas. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the order and links to the Rule 36 judgments

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

• an article highlighting how “Kathi Vidal, President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, was confirmed by the Senate”;
• another article discussing how, “[a]s part of the ongoing confirmation process for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) submitted . . . 35 IP-related questions . . . and 15 antitrust questions” to Judge Jackson and how Judge Jackson has responded to those questions; and
• a third article identifying major trends in Patent Trial and Appeal Board trials.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second and third come in cases addressing the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the Court issued a nonprecedential order granting a voluntary dismissal late yesterday. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the motivation to combine prior art references in an obviousness analysis. The court also invited a response to a petition that raising questions related to the standard for granting a motion to seal court records. The court received an amicus brief in support of a petition raising a question related to the presumption of nexus in an obviousness analysis. Finally, the court received a reply in support of a petition raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first comes in a pro se employment case and the second addresses a claim for monetary damages for enslavement of the claimant’s Native American ancestors. The court also released five nonprecedential orders as well as a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.