FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, we are still waiting for the Court to issue opinions in the two pending patent cases. As for petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case raising an Appointments Clause challenge; one respondent filed a brief in opposition to a petition raising questions related to an inmate’s right to assert patent infringement; the government submitted a waiver of its right to respond to a petition in a pro se case; and the Court requested a response to a petition raising questions related to preclusion. Additionally, four petitioners filed reply briefs in cases presenting questions related to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction, the Appointments Clause, and retroactivity in agency adjudication.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion affirming a decision in a trade case appealed from the United States Court of International Trade. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. It was a busy week at the Federal Circuit. The court received two new petitions in cases addressing issues of enablement, eligibility, and personal jurisdiction. Additionally, the court invited responses in three cases addressing termination of inter partes review proceedings, evaluation of expert opinions on summary judgment, and competitor standing. The court also received a response to a petition raising a question related to enablement. Lastly, the court issued two new denials, one in a case concerning 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and another in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court with respect to its decision addressing prosecution laches and held the remainder of the case in abeyance. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

SCOTUS Denies Review of Patent Dispute over Groundbreaking Cancer Treatment – Blake Brittain wrote an article for Reuters explaining the Supreme Court’s decision to decline review in Ono Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. 

Slow down on Mandamus: Federal Circuit Refuses to Short Circuit Judge Albright’s Decision Process – On PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch posted about another mandamus venue case arriving at the Federal Circuit from Judge Albright’s Waco, Texas courtroom. 

Here’s the latest.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today given the Memorial Day holiday.

This month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. That brief argued that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “trial system violates due process.” The brief pointed to an alleged “October Effect” where administrative patent judges allegedly “change their judging standards at the end and beginning of each performance evaluation period” and subjective performance evaluations that allegedly cause reasonable people to “question whether the PTAB invalidates patents so frequently because its constituent APJs try to please their budget-minded bosses through revenue-enhancing decision making.” Notably, Judge Moore authored a brief majority opinion vacating and remanding two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based only on the Appointments Clause. Judge Newman concurred in part and dissented in part, but also did not address the alleged due process violation. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit decided Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The amicus brief argued that Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., “which held that patent licensing demand letters can never suffice to create personal jurisdiction over asserters of those patents, is inconsistent with controlling Supreme Court precedent.” Judge Dyk authored a unanimous panel decision reversing and remanding the district court’s decision not to assert personal jurisdiction over PerDiemCo. In the court’s view, its “more recent cases have concluded that, in the context of patent litigation, communications threatening suit or proposing settlement or patent licenses can be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.” This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases: one reversing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one affirming a decision by the International Trade Commission. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part a decision by the Central District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

If San Francisco Is Not Your Final Destination… – On NatLawReview.com, George Summerfield and Katherine Allor examine the Federal Circuit’s recent patent case addressing personal jurisdiction, Trimble, Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC.

New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc. – Kevin E. Noonan reports on this case that we have been tracking, which involved alleged due process violations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 

Here is the latest.