FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and five nonprecedential orders. Both of the nonprecedential opinions came in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, both relate to patents being asserted by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in separate litigation. Of the nonprecedential orders, one addresses a notice of non-participation in an appeal in a patent case and the other four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order addressing the notice of non-participation in an appeal, as well as links to the dismissals.

As we’ve been mentioning, next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. On Wednesday, a panel will consider Farrington v. Department of Transportation, a case that attracted one amicus brief. In this case, Farrington challenges the Merit Systems Protection Board’s determination that she was not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. While no new petitions were filed, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari in a veterans case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

As we highlighted yesterday, three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and seven nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Northern District of West Virginia. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in patent cases, and one comes in a government contract case. Of the nonprecedential orders released today, three address notices of non-participation in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and among other things these orders ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office whether it will intervene in the appeals to defend the PTAB’s decisions. Two of the other nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmance, while two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders addressing the notices of non-participation in appeals, as well as links to the grants of summary affirmance and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. An opening brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. Three new amicus briefs have also been filed in the other pending en banc case regarding a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. Additionally, a new petition was filed in a Hatch-Waxman case raising a question regarding listing of patents in the Orange Book. Finally, the court denied an en banc petition raising a question concerning the lifting of an administrative injunction. Here are the highlights.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States, a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a dismissal of a complaint seeking damages based on alleged government-caused delays in a contractor’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential opinions. The lone nonprecedential opinion was in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one came in a trademark case, one came in a patent case, and the final one came in a government contract case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post indicating a recent Federal Circuit opinion provided a “fascinating exploration of three distinct doctrines of equivalence in patent law”;
• another blog post suggesting the USPTO sits “at an inflection point that requires us to build examination capacity to achieve . . . long-term pendency goals”;
• an article discussing how President Trump’s decisions to mandate “a hiring freeze across the federal government” and require “federal government employees come back to the Office five days per week” might impact the USPTO; and
• a news update analyzing how the “Skinny Labels, Big Savings Act, introduced at the end of last year and reintroduced this month in the new Congress,” is seeking to “protect generic-drug makers from patent suits when using so-called skinny labels.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and an erratum. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, all four also come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, one denies a petition for writ of mandamus and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, as well as links to dismissal and erratum.