FedCircuitBlog

Late last Thursday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Two of the dismissals came in patent cases appealed from the District of Colorado and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. One of the dismissals came in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts, as well as one nonprecedential order dismissing a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion, along with links to the dismissals.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 9 panels to consider 54 cases. Of the 54 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 35 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This Court Week, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article examining how “[t]ech companies are embracing an unorthodox appellate procedure to challenge policy shifts expanding the US Patent and Trademark Office director’s power”;
• another article covering how advocacy groups “have thrown their support behind” a challenge to the USPTO’s retroactive application of “a decision withdrawing earlier guidance on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should not review patent challenges”;
• a post discussing how “certain comments” by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director nominee John Squires “during his Senate Judiciary Confirmation hearing . . . could reflect alignment not only with Acting Director Stewart, but with Congress’s objective when it passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act”;
• a blog post criticizing a recent Federal Circuit decision for offering “a concerning example of the Federal Circuit departing from well-established patent claim construction doctrine”; and
• a piece covering how “James Woodruff II, Trump’s nominee” for the Merit Systems Protection Board, saw his nomination advance out of a Senate committee “on an 8-4 vote.”

As we noted earlier this week, two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second of those cases is Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a patent case. In this case, Sonos appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning prosecution laches, written description and priority dates, and summary judgment of invalidity. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals from decisions of the Merit System Protection Board and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This morning, the Federal Circuit released an errata for a patent case decided in April. Here are links to the dismissals and errata.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court does not have any cases pending with granted petitions. With regard to pending petitions, the Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in a patent case involving so-called skinny labels, two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two related patent cases, and the Court denied two petitions in patent cases. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. This morning, the Federal Circuit released another nonprecedential order dismissing a patent case, this one appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are links to both dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the government filed its opening brief in President Trump’s appeal challenging the judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Two amicus briefs were also filed in the same case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit received two new petitions for en banc review, one in a patent case appealed from a district court and one in a pro se case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Lastly, the Federal Circuit recently denied two petitions for en banc rehearing. Here are the details.

Two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case. In this case, Apple appeals from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, arguing the Commission erred in concluding that Masimo established an existing domestic industry, in concluding that five patent claims are infringed and not invalid, and in rejecting Apple’s prosecution laches defense. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit explained that the Veterans Court had legally erred with respect to its denial of attorney’s fees. Notably, Judge Reyna dissented. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion along with Judge Reyna’s dissent.