FedCircuitBlog

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions in patent cases appealed from federal district courts and a disposition in a takings case appealed from Court of Federal Claims. Here are the details.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before a panel that included Judges Newman, Schall, and Dyk. Mobility requested a remand to the Patent and Trademark Office in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., but it also made numerous constitutional challenges to the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Judge Dyk authored the majority opinion in the case, ultimately remanding the case to the Acting Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to consider whether to grant a rehearing in light of Arthrex, but also concluding that Mobility’s constitutional arguments are without merit. Notably, Judge Newman authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus against the U.S. Patent and Trademark. The petition requested the Federal Circuit compel the Director of the USPTO to review a board decision in an inter partes review in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. Here is the introduction to the order.

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

• a blog post assessing the Federal Circuit’s “reject[ion] [of the] argument that . . . PTAB Judges have an improper financial interest in instituting AIA proceedings”;
• an article discussing how General Motors, in a recent Federal Circuit decision, “beat back a challenge by computer-component maker Micro Mobio Corp” in a trademark dispute;
• another blog post providing an update on a case “in which the court concluded that the USPTO cannot recover expert witness fees in actions brought under 35 U.S.C. § 145”; and
• an article detailing how “Nokia Oyj, Sprint Corp., and Verizon Communications Inc. are cleared of allegations that their products infringe wireless network patents owned by Traxcell Technologies LLC.”

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case we have been following because it attracted dueling amicus briefs. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Prost, and Chen. On appeal, Kannuu argued that due to a forum selection clause in a contract among the parties the Southern District of New York should have ordered Samsung to seek dismissal of inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung. Judge Chen authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the denial of the requested relief. Judge Newman authored a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary. 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential in a patent case appealed from the District of North Dakota and addressing exceptionality and attorneys’ fees. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued three 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 the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a trademark case. Additionally, the government filed two waivers of right to respond. The Court also requested responses to two pending petitions in patent cases. Lastly, the Court denied seven petitions. 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 and two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, the court issued two nonprecedential orders granting petitions for writs of mandamus ordering the Western District of Texas to transfer patent cases. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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 the inducement doctrine’s interaction with Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s analysis of the non-obviousness requirement, and venue. The court also denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to anticipation, the evidentiary basis of an invalidity finding, and the proper standard of review of agency determinations. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions. The first two come in related patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Texas and address claim construction, infringement, and definiteness. The third comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Columbia and replaces an earlier opinion, issued by the Federal Circuit in August, regarding the shifting of attorney and expert witness fees in civil actions to obtain patents. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions appealed respectively from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.