FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition raising a question about the correct interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) and denials of petitions in two cases raising questions related to obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 judgments. The first opinion affirms a judgment in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and the second opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue its opinion in one case. With respect to petitions, one new waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, and the Court denied the petitions in a pro se case and in a veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, four nonprecedential orders, and five nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. The opinion dismisses an appeal in a pro se case for lack of jurisdiction. All of the orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders and summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board in a pro se case, while the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The first nonprecedential order remands a case vacated by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other two orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first order and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights two articles discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision changing the court’s interpretation of design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement, along with a memorandum from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office addressing the same decision:

• an article detailing the effects that the Federal Circuit’s decision will have on design patent challenges;
• another article discussing how the new test has created uncertainty over what’s obvious; and
• a memorandum from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office entitled “Updated Guidance and Examination Instructions for Making a Determination of Obviousness in Designs in Light of LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC.“

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a judgment of the Western District of Texas in a patent case. All four orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 11 panels to consider 55 cases. Of these cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 42. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment by the District of Delaware, which held that Norwich infringed certain patent claims but that other claims were invalid for obviousness. After Norwich amended its Abbreviated New Drug Application to remove the infringing indication, Norwich sought to modify the judgment, contending the amendment negated any possible infringement. The district court, however, denied its motion. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judge Chen, affirmed the judgment of the district court. Judge Cunningham, however, filed a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion.