FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief; the on-sale bar; and the standard for granting a motion to seal court records. The court also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction. Finally, the court received a motion to expedite issuance of a mandate and ordered a response to the motion in the previously-mentioned case raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in part, disagreeing with the majority’s decision to reverse a jury verdict on the issue of joint ownership of a patent. The second comes in veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Eastern District of Texas, respectively. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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 discussing how “[a] bipartisan group of five U.S. senators have introduced a bill to amend Chapter 28 of Title 35 of the U.S. Code to include language that would combat corrupt Chinese Courts from issuing ‘anti-suit injunctions’”;
• an article reporting on an “exclusive interview with [Judge Kathleen] O’Malley on a video call during her final week on the court”; and
• another article analyzing a recent grant of a writ of mandamus against the Western District of Texas in a patent case.

This afternoon the Federal Circuit announced Kathleen O’Malley’s retirement from the Federal Circuit. Judge O’Malley served on the bench of the Federal Circuit for over eleven years, after serving over sixteen years as a district court judge. In her service at the Federal Circuit, she took part in many important cases. As just one example, Judge O’Malley authored the court’s opinion in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC concerning copyright law in the context of Oracle’s Java application programming interface. We wish her well in retirement. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

Last Friday, the Federal Circuit announced its celebration of Women’s History Month by hosting a panel of the court’s female judges, including Chief Judge Moore and Judges Newman, Prost, Stoll, Cunningham, and O’Malley. We are thankful for these Judges’ contributions to the court and join the court in celebrating Women’s History Month. Here is the full text of last week’s announcement as well as a picture commemorating the event.

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 a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

On February 24, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in In re Elster, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of a trademark registration, Elster argued the rejection violated of the Constitution’s First Amendment. In particular, Elster faulted section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which recites that “[n]o trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it . . . [c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent . . . .” The United States argued that section 2(c) is constitutionally legal and applied correctly in this case. The Federal Circuit, however, found section 2(c) unconstitutional as applied here. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the court issued five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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:

• a blog post discussing how, in a patent case addressing venue, “the Federal Circuit delved into franchise law — holding that independently owned and operated VW/Hyundai car dealerships located in the W.D. Texas do not count as a ‘place of business’ of the car distributors”; and
• an article analyzing how the Federal Circuit recently “affirm[ed] decisions by [the] International Trade Commission [and] patent board” in cases involving computer-chip patents.

On February 22, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. United States, Cacciapalle v. United States, Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, and Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, cases that attracted amicus briefs. In these cases, the plaintiffs asserted claims at the Court of Federal Claims based on government actions related to the 2008 financial crisis and ownership of shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As explained by the Court of Federal Claims in one of the cases, the “plaintiffs seek the return of money illegally exacted, damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and compensation for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The Court of Federal Claims, however, dismissed these claims, finding it “lacks jurisdiction to entertain their fiduciary duty and implied-in-fact-contract claims, and plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any of their claims.” The plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower court’s holdings. The Federal Circuit consolidated these cases and issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part. This is our opinion summary.