FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of a motion to dismiss, which the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System filed on the ground of sovereign immunity in an inter partes review proceeding. The court also issued six Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here is the text of the opinion and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three non precedential opinions: one affirming a decision by the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals in favor of Veterans Affairs; one affirming a district court’s order granting a motion for attorneys’ fees in a patent case; and one affirming an arbitrator’s sustaining of a dismissal of a federal employee from her employment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Emergency Amendment to Federal Circuit Rule 15(f). The court did so as a result of its en banc decision yesterday in National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in which the court held “that Federal Circuit Rule 15(f), establishing a 60-day time limit for bringing section 502 petitions, is invalid.” Section 502 petitions relate to any “action of the Secretary to which section 552(a)(1) or 553 of title 5 (or both) refers.” Those provisions of Title 5, for example, refer to rules and rule making. Here is the text of today’s notice, which includes a link to the relevant order signed by Chief Judge Prost today.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. We have activity to report in both of the court’s two pending en banc veterans cases: a unanimous opinion in one and the filing of the appellant’s reply brief in the other. In patent cases with petitions for en banc rehearing, six new petitions have been filed raising questions related to patent eligibility, claim construction, due process, inducement of infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman, and venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman. The court has also issued invitations for responses to petitions in two cases raising questions related to patent eligibility and intervention. And the court has denied three petitions raising questions related to obviousness, infringement and claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a prededential en banc opinion in a veterans case, National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, concluding that the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction over the case and that a Federal Circuit rule is invalid given the applicable statute of limitations. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case; a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; and a nonprecedential opinion in another case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introduction to the opinions.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene 15 panels to consider about 69 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will hear oral arguments in 39 of the 69 cases. Of these argued cases, four attracted amicus briefs: one in a takings case, two in patent cases, and one in a veterans case. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion addressing jurisdiction in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board; a precedential order denying a petition for panel and en banc rehearing in an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board over a dissent by Judge Wallach; and a nonprecedential erratum correcting a typographical error in an opinion issued in trade case yesterday. Here is the introductions to the opinions and text from the erratum.

The fourth case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is a patent case entitled MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. In particular, the Federal Circuit will consider whether the district court erroneously excluded evidence of comparable license negotiations under the parol-evidence rule during a Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty analysis. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade in an antidumping case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.