FedCircuitBlog

Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, and—to put it lightly—the government had a tough go. Malcolm Stewart of the Office of the Solicitor General faced a barrage of questions finding fault with the government’s position that patent applicants must pay the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s attorneys’ fees when challenging rejections in federal district court. NantKwest’s Morgan Chu, by contrast, faced many questions seeking to clarify the historical record and NantKwest’s position, but few directly challenging NantKwest’s position on the merits.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Court of Federal Claims case, two nonprecedential orders in related patent cases, and five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Last week we provided a preview of the 27 petitions distributed for the Supreme Court’s October 1 conference in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Here is a report on the order list the Supreme Court issued today as a result of its October 1 conference. In a nutshell, the Court denied or dismissed petitions for certiorari in 21 cases decided by the Federal Circuit, and left six other petitions pending.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and five Rule 36 judgments.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 covers a note on comments made by Federal Circuit Judge S. Jay Plager during recent oral arguments, a report on a recent Federal Circuit opinion related to the authority to issue certificates of correction of patents, and a preview of Monday’s oral arguments in Peter v. NantKwest.

When a patent applicant challenges the U.S. Patent and Trademark’s rejection of her patent application, and in particular takes that challenge into federal district court rather than straight to the Federal Circuit—in order, for example, to introduce new evidence and obtain de novo review—must the applicant pay the USPTO’s personnel expenses of the district court proceeding? Indeed, must the applicant pay those expenses, including attorneys’ fees, regardless of whether the applicant wins or loses in court? Those are questions the Supreme Court will consider Monday, when it holds oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., the first of six Federal Circuit cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear during the 2019 Term.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in an international trade case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. 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. Of the six pending merits cases, there was no new activity. Three new petitions, however, were filed, along with a supplemental brief, two response briefs, and an amicus brief.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one precedential opinion in a government contract case (with an opinion from Judge Hughes concurring in part and dissenting in part), one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and three nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases, including recent petitions related to patent eligibility and the constitutionality of inter partes review, a response to a petition on the issue of standing to challenge Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions confirming patentability, and an amicus brief in support of another petition.