FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Peter v. NantKwest, holding that the Patent and Trademark Office does not get to recover the salaries of its attorneys and paralegal employees when a patent applicant files a civil action in the United States District of Virginia to challenge a rejection of its application.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions (on whether Arthrex should be applied to cases pending on appeal at the time it was decided, and whether the PTAB must consider arguments not made or adopted by examiners), an amicus brief, and three denials of petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case along with three Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, a case addressing whether a patent owner has the right under the patent statute to appeal a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a petition for inter partes review was not filed after a statutory deadline. In short, while Justice Gorsuch appeared to agree with the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that patent owners have that right, several other Justices, and particularly Justice Kagan, seemed to harbor significant doubt that Congress had not eliminated the ability to appeal in this circumstance.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights news regarding a recent decision by the Federal Circuit in a veterans case related to Agent Orange exposure, today’s oral argument at the Supreme Court in three cases decided by the Federal Cirxuit, the Solicitor General’s recent amicus briefs suggesting the Supreme Court should wait to review a case concerning patent eligibility law, and a summary of Converse’s efforts to protect its Chuck Taylor shoe from alleged copyists.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions (all addressing lack of jurisdiction and standing) and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On Friday the Solicitor General filed amicus briefs requested by the Supreme Court in two patent cases, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. and HP Inc. v. Berkheimer. In both cases, the Solicitor General recommended that the Court deny review. A closer examination of the briefs, however, shows the Solicitor General supporting a reexamination of substantive, if not not procedural, patent eligibility law, at least as expressed by the Supreme Court since Bilski v. Kappos in 2010, and in particular in the currently-pending case Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC.

The Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument tomorrow in three cases challenging the Federal Circuit’s holding that various health insurance companies cannot obtain damages under the Tucker Act for subsidies that were identified in the Affordable Care Act but that Congress later declined to appropriate. The three cases are Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United States.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a government contract case and a veterans case. The court also issued five Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Does the patent statute permit patent owners to appeal decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board that petitions for inter partes review were not filed late? Or, under the statute, are these decisions simply unreviewable? The Supreme Court will tackle these questions on Monday, when it will hear argument in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP.