FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. This week’s highlights include new petitions filed in a patent case raising questions related to Rule 36 and a pro se case raising questions related to Whistleblower Protection Act, a new brief in opposition filed in another patent case raising questions related to patent eligibility, and a new waiver of the right to respond in a third patent case raising questions related to prior art that may be asserted in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion reverses and remands a grant of summary judgment by the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, while the second precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The first nonprecedential opinion dismisses half of a consolidated appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board while affirming the other half, while the second nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. All of the orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief.  In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss inducement claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the District of Delaware in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Western District of Texas Judge Alan Albright, who sat by designation. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. A new petition was filed in a patent case raising questions concerning patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the District of Delaware that an out-of-state non-party was in contempt of court for disregarding an order requiring her to testify at a hearing. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Hughes that was joined by Judges Prost and Stoll, affirmed the contempt order of the district court. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. Both opinions affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The first order remands a case to the Central District of California. The second transfers a case to the Southern District of Ohio. The last two orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to the remaining orders.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article reporting on how lawmakers are considering reforms to intellectual property litigation and the U.S. International Trade Commission; and
• an article discussing the “battle” that has “embroiled” the Federal Circuit and Judge Newman, the oldest living federal judge.

The Federal Circuit did not release any orders or opinions on its website today.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The opinion affirms in part and reverses in part a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order remands a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for further proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article reporting on a special committee of the Federal Circuit recommending that Judge Newman be suspended from case assignments for another year for failing to undergo required neurological exams; and
• an article reporting on the same special committee’s opinion that Judge “Newman’s refusal to submit to medical testing by the Committee’s selected doctors as ‘serious misconduct.’”