FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case holding that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) disclosed within a challenged patent is not “prior art” for the purposes of inter partes review. While the court noted that AAPA is not categorically excluded from inter partes review for all purposes, the court held is not “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” under the relevant statutory provision. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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 recently “the Federal Circuit denied a petition for mandamus relief from an order transferring a first-filed declaratory judgment action”;
• another article explaining how “AstraZeneca has urged the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to revisit a split panel decision”;
• another article detailing how a “Federal Circuit judge said Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court justices created ‘a trap for the unwary’ by keeping alive a doctrine barring inventors from challenging the validity of their own patents”; and
• yet another article assessing how the Federal Circuit recently “address[ed] [the] ‘abuse of authority’ standard under [federal] whistleblower law.”

Last Monday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Cross v. Office of Personnel Management, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Moore, Schall, and Stoll. On appeal, Cross asked the Federal Circuit to reverse a decision of the Merits Systems Protection Board regarding the denial of survivor benefits. In particular, the petitioner claimed survivor benefits as a surviving former spouse when her deceased former husband failed affirmatively to re-elect her survivor benefits during the few months between their divorce and his death. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s denial of survivor benefits. This is our opinion summary.

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

As we previously reported, two weeks ago today the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit, George v. McDonough. The petitioner asked the Court to clarify the scope of clear and unmistakeable error with regard to cases involving veterans whose benefits have been wrongly withheld based on an incorrect interpretation of a statute. Notably, this is the only case this term in which the Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments in a case decided by the Federal Circuit. Here are more details about the case.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The lower court applied an adverse inference against an importer regarding subsidies it had received due to the government of China’s lack of cooperation in the Department of Commerce’s investigation of the imported goods. The Federal Circuit’s opinion affirms the lower court’s application of the adverse inference. 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:

• a blog post discussing venue in patent litigation in the context of “Chief Justice Roberts provid[ing] his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary”;
• an article analyzing arguments recently made for why a “suit against [an] ex-USPTO director should stay alive”; and
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit recently “held that the term ‘lifter member’ invokes means plus function (MPF) claiming.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. The opinion reversed the district court’s determination that certain patent claims were invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit concluded the district court erred with respect to the legal standard for indefiniteness. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. Here are the introductions to the opinion and dissent.

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, since our last update the Court has not granted any new petitions. Three new petitions, however, have since been filed: two in patent cases and one filed by a pro se petitioner. Additionally, a waiver of right to respond to one of the three new petitions was filed, and a brief in opposition was filed in a case that raises a question regarding Article III standing in a series of patent appeals. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the second opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.