FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight one new opinion in a veterans case and four new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a veterans case and three patent cases. We also highlight new briefing in two patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a trademark case and veterans case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions about claim construction, summary judgment, and eligibility and two denials of petitions raising questions related to unclean hands and ANDA litigation. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of International Trade, the second affirms a judgment of the District Court of New Jersey in a patent infringement case, and the third reverses-in-part, vacates-in-part, and remands-in-part a breach of contract case to the Court of Federal Claims. The nonprecedential opinion affirms-in-part, vacates-in-part, and remands a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion vacates and remands a case decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, five new amicus briefs were filed in another patent case, and two pro se petitions were denied. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the third vacates and remands another judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued it opinion in Frantzis v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Veterans Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore that was joined by Judges Clevenger and Chen, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Veteran Claims. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion reversing a district court in a trade secrets case. The district court had granted a preliminary injunction. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entertainment, a trademark case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. As explained by the appellants, Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac and Institut National Des Appellations D’Origine, “[i]n a two-to-one split decision, the Board held registrable a mark prominently incorporating without permission the certification mark COGNAC, holding that the mark (combining the phrase COLOGNE & COGNAC ENTERTAINMENT and a design featuring, inter alia, a bottle of COGNAC), if used for hip-hop music and production services, was not likely to cause confusion or dilution.” Judges Lourie, Clevenger, and Hughes heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. Both orders are dismissals. Here are the links to the orders.