FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one nonprecedential erratum, and six nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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 includes a Washington Post article on Oracle’s challenge to the Defense Department’s award of a massive cloud-computing contract to Microsoft, a highlight of a recent concurring opinion by two Federal Circuit judges criticizing the court’s recent Arthrex decision, and an amicus brief filed by the Cato Institute related to railroad right-of-way easements.

The Federal Circuit did not issue any new opinions today given that it is Veterans Day, a federal holiday.

An interesting case that was set to be argued this week involved Power Integrations, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. This case presented the question of whether foreign lost profits may be recovered when patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)—that is, for direct patent infringement, which requires that the infringement occur within the United States. This case—involving a rare interlocutory appeal—was one of only two cases set to be argued this month that included an amicus brief. The parties, however, settled the case and the Federal Circuit granted a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. Thus, while this blog post ordinarily would have been a recap of the oral argument, instead we are limited to analyzing the briefing in the case, highlighting the lingering question the case presented and the parties’ arguments on point.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in a patent case, an international trade case, and a case affirming the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in another case affirming the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the court issued five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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 includes a post on PatentlyO by Professor Arti K. Rai on the Federal Circuit’s Arthrex decision, additional commentary at IPWatchdog from a panel of IP experts on the impact of Arthrex, and a New York Times article on the Supreme Court’s rejection of Time Warner’s petition for certiorari.

As previewed on this blog, an important case that was argued this week at the Federal Circuit is Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company. This case involves a dispute regarding the correct application of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which prohibits a petitioner in an inter partes review that results in a final written decision from asserting in a patent infringement case that a patent claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner “raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” A panel of the Federal Circuit including Judges Prost, Newman, and Bryson heard oral arguments in this case on Monday. Here is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in a patent case, a Vaccine Act case, and a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in a patent case, a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and a case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

It was a busy week at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Three amicus briefs in favor of the respondent were filed in one of the four granted cases, Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP. With respect to petitions, multiple petitions were denied, two new petitions were filed, several party briefs were filed, and nine amicus briefs were filed in one case, Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC. We have the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a case involving a payment dispute with the United States Bureau of Reclamation under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, one nonprecedential order denying a petition for writ of mandamus in a patent case, and three nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.