FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions raising questions related to inter partes review, eligible subject matter, and enablement; a new response to a petition addressing intervention; two new invitations to respond to petitions raising questions related to transfer of venue and inducement of infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and the denial of a petition related to anticipation. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

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 a disposition in a takings case, a patent case attracting an amicus brief on the issue of the non-obviousness requirement, new briefing in a patent case challenging post-grant review proceedings as violating due process, and four recent oral arguments in cases raising questions related to patent, takings, and veterans law. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and a precedential opinion in a veterans case. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case and a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

As we have been reporting, last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of the patent cases, MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, former owners of bump-fire type rifle stocks assert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed a taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions: one in a veterans case and one in an international trade case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case, one in a case involving the Tucker Act, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a transfer of a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

As we previously reported, last week the Federal Circuit issued an en banc opinion in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. After deciding that NOVA had standing and the court had jurisdiction over the case, the court held that a Federal Circuit rule setting a filing deadline for certain petitions was inconsistent with a federal statute and therefore invalid. Notably, to reach these conclusions, the court not only invalidated one of its rules but also overruled three of its cases. Here is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and a Rule 36 judgment in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.