FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit . . . denied Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to revive her constitutional challenge to the judicial misconduct law under which her colleagues suspended her and are continuing to probe her fitness to serve”;
• a blog post indicating a recent petition at the Supreme Court in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit “presents fundamental questions about whether foreign-language marks should be evaluated based on consumer perception or English translation”; and
• a commentary addressing a new policy adopted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that “limits the types of prior art that may be used to challenge patents in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released an en banc precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The en banc opinion addresses the law governing standing to file a bid protest in a government contract dispute. Judge Hughes authored the majority opinion on behalf of himself and six other judges. Notably, Judge Hughes authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by three other judges. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases, one appealed from a district court and one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update three new petitions have been filed. One presents questions related to the Lanham Act, one presents a question related to patent law, and one comes in a pro se case. Two waivers of right to respond to petitions have been filed. One comes in a trademark case, and one comes in a patent case. A brief in opposition was filed in a case presenting a question related to the Lanham Act, and an amicus brief was filed in the same case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released a precedential opinion in a vaccine case and a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case. The court also released an errata and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the errata and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions in cases appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. One is a trademark case, and the other is a patent case. Notably, Judge Lourie dissented in the trademark case. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. One was in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one was in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

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

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent infringement case appealed from the International Trade Commission and one in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article describing how “Samsung Electronics Co. and Google LLC lodged an appellate protest of Trump administration changes that have sunk more than 200 patent challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a piece considering implications of the PTAB’s announcement that “all PTAB hearings will be held in person at the USPTO’s offices, absent a showing of good cause”;
• a blog post analyzing how “[a]bout half of the patents adjudicated in district courts and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are found invalid”; and
• a blog post suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “illustrates how the Federal Circuit appears to be increasingly disregarding the jury’s role in fact finding.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent infringement case appealed from the Eastern District of New York. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit received two letters in the court’s pending en banc case involving President Trump. In addition, two petitions for en banc review were filed in patent cases raising questions related to Rule 52 evidentiary trials and patent eligibility, and the court denied a petition in another patent case raising questions related to invalidity. Here are the details.