FedCircuitBlog

As we reported earlier today, a Federal Circuit panel this morning issued a precedential order in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. The order is important. It highlights the potential reach of the Federal Circuit’s decision earlier this year in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. Indeed, it suggests that Administrative Patent Judges are unconstitutionally appointed with respect to every aspect of their work: not just inter partes reviews, and not just inter partes reexaminations, but also everything else, including ex parte reexaminations, covered business method review, and ex parte appeals.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential order unsealing it; two precedential orders in a patent case denying panel and en banc rehearing respectively; and nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, two patent cases, and a tax case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

May the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reject a motion to amend a patent in an inter partes review because the Board concludes that a proposed substitute claim does not comply with the eligibility requirement? The Federal Circuit considered that question during an oral argument last week in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC. As discussed in our argument preview, the case attracted an amicus brief in favor of the Board’s position that it may consider eligibility in this context. Here is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in five cases raising questions related to eligibility, claim construction, novelty, and non-obviousness; an amicus brief in a case raising a question related to eligibility; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to eligibility, the Appointments Clause, and non-obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the erratum.

Last week three argued cases attracted amicus briefs. One was a veterans case, Sellers v. Wilkie. In it, the Federal Circuit considered “[w]hether a claimant’s general statement requesting benefits on a formal claim form that identifies specific disabilities constitutes a claim for all ‘reasonably identifiable’ diagnoses within the claimant’s records.” The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. and the National Veterans Legal Services Program filed an amicus brief supporting the claimant. Here is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases and two nonprecedential opinions in cases reviewing decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

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

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case and a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued a summary affirmance under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit granted the National Organization of Veterans Advocates’s petition for initial hearing en banc in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. NOVA requested its initial hearing to be conducted by the full court to consider two questions related to veterans law. In short, the court agreed. Here are the details.