FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights a news report on the Supreme Court temporarily staying a Federal Circuit mandate, a New York Times article discussing a recent denial of en banc rehearing, and comments by former Chief Judge Paul Michel on the Federal Circuit’s obviousness standard.

As we reported earlier today, this morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in In re Google LLC ordering that the case be dismissed or transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for lack of venue. We have been tracking the case given the filing of an amicus brief in support of Google. As previously noted in our oral argument recap, Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the case for lack of venue. The district court had found venue appropriate based on the presence of Google’s servers in the district. A panel of the Federal Circuit disagreed with that basis for venue, and Judge Wallach filed a concurring opinion. Here is a summary of today’s order and some reflections on both the panel’s decision and Judge Wallach’s concurrence.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in In re Google LLC granting a writ of mandamus ordering the case be dismissed or transferred. The Federal Circuit also issued three precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases. Here is the text of the order and the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a granted application to stay the Federal Circuit’s mandate to allow the prospective petitioner to challenge the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that it had waived the argument that succeeded in Arthrex, two new petitions including one related to the exhaustion doctrine and design patents, and several responses to petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here is the judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include one new petition related to obviousness, one amicus brief in support of a petition related to transfer, one notice of supplemental authority related to expert testimony and a response to the notice, and the denial of two petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential erratum, and three Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion, the text of the erratum, and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights a call by the Federal Circuit for the U.S. Patent and Trademark office to comment on the scope and effect of Arthrex, a comment on implied patent licenses, and a report that Apple has another shot at invalidating claims of a patent it has been accused of infringing.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in an international trade case, a veterans case, and a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, two nonprecedential orders in patent cases, and four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard one case that attracted amicus briefs, National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the court considered whether language added by the E-Government Act requires “a reduction in PACER fees” (the plaintiffs’ position), locks “in the status quo” in terms of fees (the district court’s holding), or authorizes an “expansion in fees” (the government’s position). Last Monday, the plaintiffs-appellants (National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center, and Alliance for Justice) and the defendant-appellee United States presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Lourie, Clevenger, and Hughes. This is our argument recap.