The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders this morning.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. As for granted petitions, a new brief was filed in one of the two pending veterans cases. As for pending petitions, highlights include two new petitions, one in a patent case raising questions related to claim construction and one in a pro se case; and the denial of four petitions in patent cases raising questions related to obviousness, prosecution history estoppel, vitiation, reasonable royalties, and sanctions. Here are the details.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a trade case, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the court issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued a precedential order issuing a writ of mandamus that directs the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent infringement suit to the Northern District of California. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of those cases, Euzebio v. Wilkie, the court heard arguments concerning the following veterans law issues: (1) whether “[t]he Veterans Court’s ‘direct relationship’ requirement is an erroneous legal standard for determining what facts are before the Board;” (2) whether “the Veterans Court erred in holding that it lacks the legal authority to look at relevant facts known to the agency for purposes of reviewing the Board’s decision;” and (3) whether “the Veterans Court misinterpreted the scope of VA’s duty to assist when it affirmed VA’s failure to develop the record with relevant facts concededly known to the agency.” This is our argument recap.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a trade case, and a veterans case. The court also issued a nonprecedential erratum and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the erratum, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit also heard oral argument in Boeing Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force. We have been following this case because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, the court is considering whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in holding that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 252.227-7013 precludes government contractors from marking technical data delivered to the Government in a certain way. In particular, Boeing argues it should be permitted to mark technical data in a way that (a) recognizes the Government’s unlimited rights in the data, (b) does not restrict or impair the Government’s rights, and (c) restricts only the rights of third parties to use the data absent permission from the contractor or the Government. This is our argument recap.