FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit did not issue any new opinions or orders this morning.

I’m pleased to announce that, this week and next, Fed Circuit Blog will host its first online symposium. This symposium will focus on the anticipated sunset of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s statutory directive to hold “covered business method review” proceedings—hearings to review the patentability of claims included in “covered business method patents.” The Federal Circuit, of course, hears appeals from parties dissatisfied with judgments rendered by the PTAB in these CBMR proceedings, and over the last several years the court has issued a number of opinions in this context. Here, I provide background on these proceedings and introduce some of the topics participants in our symposium will address in their guest blog posts.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to claim construction; new invitations to respond to petitions raising questions related to novelty and non-obviousness; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to design patent law and joinder in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a vaccine case, one in a veterans case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

The Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions today given the Labor Day holiday.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. Amarin asked the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s judgment of obviousness based on alleged erroneous use of hindsight reasoning. Amarin alleged in its briefs that the district court “fell victim to hindsight” by not “apply[ing] each of the Graham factors, including the common sense objective indicia, before declaring an invention obvious.” Notably, the Federal Circuit granted a Rule 36 summary affirmance yesterday. This is our recap of the oral argument.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order granting panel rehearing to withdraw and replace a prior precedential opinion in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, a patent case addressing joinder of parties and claims in inter partes review proceedings. The court subsequently issued a modified precedential opinion in the case, along with a separate order denying en banc rehearing in the same case. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming the dismissal of another case for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the orders.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Albright v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. The court addressed the holding by the Court of Federal Claims “that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” Chief Judge Prost and Judges Taranto and Linn heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a government contracts case and an international trade case. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions: one dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction and three in patent cases. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.