FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one in a patent case and two in employment cases. The precedential patent opinion addresses eligibility. The two precedential employment opinions address the interpretation and application of 38 U.S.C. § 714, which governs the removal, demotion, or suspension of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on performance or alleged misconduct. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in one of these employment cases. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case, and that opinion addresses claim construction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced revised protocols for in-person arguments that apply starting with the court’s September 2021 hearings, which begin on Monday, August 30. Notably, compared to the protocols issued in June, the court reduced the number of non-arguing attendees from two to one per arguing counsel; the court adjusted the protocols to require vaccinated individuals to wear masks in the court building; and now, “[t]o enter the courtroom, counsel and attendees will be required to attest to the fact that they are fully vaccinated or have received a negative COVID19 test administered within the prior 48 hours.” Here is the text of this morning’s announcement, with links to the revised protocols and related documents.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update four new petitions were filed in a patent case, a case challenging the Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 summary affirmances, and two pro se cases; the government submitted waivers of right to respond in four pro se cases; and the government filed a brief in opposition in a veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, a precedential opinion in patent case, and a nonprecedential decision in a government contract case. Judge Newman dissented in the case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three petitions concerning issues related to transfer and petitions for writs of mandamus, inter partes review and deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and anticipation. The court also invited a response to a petition concerning the scope of appellate review. Lastly, the court denied a petition in a case concerning induced infringement and the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

Apple Must Face Apple Watch Patent Claims, Fed Circ. Affirms – Blake Brittain posted an article on Reuters.com about how Apple “lost its bid to escape patent infringement claims over its Apple Watch technology . . . at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

Teva’s Generic Label Not Skinny Enough to Protect from $234M Damages to GSK – In an article written by Khadijah M. Silver on MedCityNews.com, Silver reports that the Federal Circuit issued a “controversial” decision about Teva’s “skinny label.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments, one affirming a judgment appealed from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the other affirming a judgment appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The court also issued one erratum. Here are links to the relevant orders.

This past Wednesday the court heard oral argument 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 have now appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower court’s holdings. The Federal Circuit consolidated these cases for purposes of oral argument. Judges Lourie, Prost, and O’Malley heard Wednesday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case over a dissent by Judge O’Malley. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims and the other in an appeal from a determination of the International Trade Commission in a patent dispute. Additionally, the court issued a nonprecedential order unsealing its opinion in the appeal from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.