FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in six cases raising questions relating to design patent claim construction, damages, claim construction, eligibility, inequitable conduct, non-obviousness, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; three requests for responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of six petitions raising issues including the Appointments Clause, claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and damages. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued three Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and list of the summary affirmances.

This morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LLC. The Court held that time-bar decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board when determining whether to institute inter partes review proceedings are not appealable. Justice Ginsburg authored the majority decision. Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor dissented.

About once a month we provide an update on activity in important patent cases. In particular, we keep track of patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit, where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We also keep track of non-patent cases that attract amicus briefs, but only once those cases have been scheduled for oral argument. Finally, we also highlight panel cases we find important. You can find all of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight two patent cases with new briefing, an argument recap in the only such case argued in April, and three upcoming oral arguments in these cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one precedential opinion in an Arizona-Florida Land Exchange Act case, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights the Federal Circuit’s decision to throw out a $100 million verdict in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., another decision holding that attorneys’ fees may not be awarded where a case is dismissed without a court order, a blog post about the frequency individual Federal Circuit judges heard or canceled oral arguments this month, and a post highlighting the first telephonic oral arguments heard by the Federal Circuit this month.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in Merit Systems Protection Board cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In granted cases, the Court postponed one oral argument. In petitions cases, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to retroactive application of inter partes review and waiver with respect to an Appointments Clause challenge. Two responses in opposition to petitions were filed in patent cases raising questions related to the written description requirement and standing to appeal in inter partes review proceedings. There was one new reply brief filed in a veterans case concerning attorneys fees. And several amicus briefs were filed in three cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.