FedCircuitBlog

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

Update (April 21, 2021 at 3:30 pm):

The Federal Circuit issued a revised announcement changing only the date of Judge Moore’s succession, from May 21 to May 22.

Original Post:

This afternoon the Federal Circuit announced that one month from today, on May 21, 2021, Judge Moore will succeed Judge Prost as the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit. The court highlighted that Judge Prost will continue to serve the court as an active judge following the conclusion of her term as Chief Judge. Notably, Judge Prost has served as the court’s Chief Judge since May 31, 2014, and so she will step down from her position as Chief Judge ten days short of the full seven-year term allowed by statute. Here is the text of today’s announcement, which includes a link to a more full description of the transition.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a modified precedential order granting a motion to substitute a successor-in-interest in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination of a design patent. Compared to the original order, the modified order differs primarily in that Judge Dyk modified parts of the original order and Judge O’Malley now dissents from the grant of the motion. Here is the introduction to the modified order and the text of Judge O’Malley’s dissent.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received and invited a response to a new petition raising questions related to enablement. The court also denied three petitions raising questions related definiteness, intervening rights, willfulness, unclean hands, claim construction, and the doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a takings case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, one affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and another dismissing an appeal for lack of constitutional standing. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent infringement case. Notably, this order marked the second grant of mandamus against the Western District of Texas in the same case. The first grant of mandamus required the Western District of Texas to rule on a long-pending motion to transfer, while this second grant of mandamus requires the Western District of Texas to transfer the case.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case concerning whether a reference needs a self-enabling disclosure to support obviousness and another precedential opinion in a government contracts case. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is this month’s 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 two recent oral arguments in a veteran’s case and a patent case, as well as three upcoming oral arguments in a patent case, veteran’s case, and a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case affirming a holding of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

As we have been reporting, two panels of the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments last week in cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., the court is reviewing two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method reviews and, in particular, arguments that structural bias within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in favor of challenges to patents amounts to a due process violation. Judges Moore, Taranto, and Newman heard the arguments. This is our argument recap.