FedCircuitBlog

This afternoon the Federal Circuit announced that it has adopted new procedures for the handling of what it is calling “highly sensitive documents.” The court indicated it is doing so given “recent disclosures of widespread breaches of both private sector and government computer systems.” Notably, the court indicated it will treat these documents “outside of the court’s electronic case filing system.” Moreover, it will adjust not only how it will handle documents filed in the future, but also how it will handle highly sensitive documents that already have been electronically filed both in pending and even closed cases. Here is the text of today’s announcement, which includes links to the related order and modified Electronic Filing Procedures, along with a summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a veterans case, one in a government contract case, and one in a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Today the Federal Circuit announced modified procedures for nonelectronic filing and submissions for the time period of January 13 through January 20. This time period coincides with preparations for Inaugural Day on January 20. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court scheduled oral argument in a en banc veterans case. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. Highlights in pending en banc petitions in patent cases include a new petition raising questions related to enablement and claim construction; a petition and an invitation for response in a case raising a question related to injunctive relief; a response to a petition raising a question related to venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and denials of four petitions raising questions related to intervention in inter partes review, claim construction, and due process. Here are the details.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit decided Veterans4You, Inc. v. United States, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Clevenger authored a unanimous panel opinion reversing the Court of Federal Claim’s conclusion that the “printing mandate” of 44 U.S.C. § 501 applied to a solicitation at issue in the case and obligated Veterans Affairs to route the solicitation through Government Publishing Office. The Federal Circuit agreed with Veterans4You’s argument that, instead, § 501 applies only to the production of written or graphic published materials. According to the Federal Circuit, because the solicited goods at issue in this case did not fall within this category of materials, they do not fall within the printing mandate. This is our opinion summary.

Today the Federal Circuit announced that it will be closed on Monday and Wednesday of next week given the observance of Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday and Inauguration Day, respectively. Here is the text of the court’s announcement with a link to the court’s order on point.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Additionally, the court issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case involving veteran-owned small businesses. The court also issued six nonprecedential opinions in various cases: one dismissing an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, two in government contracts cases, two in veterans cases, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On Friday the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a patent infringement case decided by the Federal Circuit in April of last year. In this case, the petitioner asks the Court to abandon or limit the doctrine of assignor estoppel, which prevents a party who in the past assigned a patent from later contesting the patent’s validity. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a vaccine case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.