FedCircuitBlog

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

• a series of blog posts discussing “whether the Federal Circuit is an outlier among the circuit courts in its use of mandamus”;
• an article discussing how “patent owners must maximize their chances of success” before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board given the Federal Circuit’s affirmance rate; and
• another article detailing how “[a] group of steel importers made their latest bid to overturn Trump-era national security tariffs.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for writ of mandamus directing the District Court for Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. Here is the introduction to the order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. For the first time during the Supreme Court’s current term, the Court granted certiorari in a case decided by the Federal Circuit, but notably it did so only to vacate the Federal Circuit’s judgment and remand the case for further consideration of an Appointments Clause challenge. As for still-pending petitions, since our last update a pro se party filed a petition. Additionally, a petitioner filed a reply in support of its petition, which raised two questions related to retroactive application of inter partes review and the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances. Lastly, the Supreme Court denied two petitions: one filed by a pro se petitioner and one in a patent case raising an Appointments Clause challenge. Here are the details.

Next week, FedCircuitBlog, in conjunction with the Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation at SMU Dedman School of Law, will be hosting its third online symposium. Entitled “Patent Law and Institutional Choice,” this symposium will explore the latest major controversies, legal developments, and judicial decisions in the field of patent law through panel presentations and discussions with distinguished academics. In particular, the symposium will explore the institutional structure of the U.S. patent system and the roles of its institutions: the U.S. Congress; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; federal district courts and juries; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and the U.S. Supreme Court. Confronting critiques of this structure and these institutions, this symposium will consider how the U.S. patent system may be improved to further the innovation economy. After SMU hosts three online discussion panels on Friday, October 29, Fed Circuit Blog will later publish written contributions from each panelist. Here is more information on the symposium, including its topics and speakers and how to register to attend the online discussion panels.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that it will be closed on Friday, November 26, following its closure for the Thanksgiving federal holiday on Thursday, November 25. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions, one in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and one in a case concerning the jurisdiction of 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 two new petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to inter partes review estoppel and notice required to collect damages for infringement. The court also received three new responses to petitions that raised questions related to the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding, the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order transfer, and the assignment of patents. The court received four amicus briefs in cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding, patent eligibility, and the assignment of patents. Finally, the court denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to the weight given to expert witness testimony during claim construction and the non-obviousness requirement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second and third come in government contract cases appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, respectively. 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:

• a blog post detailing how in a patent case the Federal Circuit “affirmed a district court’s finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285” based on inequitable conduct;
• another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the “potential for decision maker bias to occur”;
• a report explaining the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of “a Texas federal court’s decision to clear HP and other companies . . . of infringing several printing patents” and an “attorney fee order”; and
• an article assessing how Apple “won . . . support . . . for its effort to get the Federal Circuit to rehear [a patent] ownership dispute.”

Today the Federal Circuit announced the launch of its new website. Here is the court’s announcement regarding the new website and some highlights of the website’s new and improved features.