FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and six Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the opinions addresses an appeal challenging several orders of a district court in a patent case. Another of the opinions challenges a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The other two opinions address appeals from judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to vacate an order staying proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the order, and links to the summary affirmances.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include four denials of petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases concerning questions of patent eligibility, printed publications, and inter partes review. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. Both of the opinions address appeals from judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmance.

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

• an article about how the “Federal Circuit on Friday appeared unlikely to overturn an injunction removing from the market a NeoGenomics Laboratories Inc. cancer screening test due to a pair of Natera Inc. patents”;
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling that, “though marked non-precedential, arguably expands the application of the abstract idea exception to patentability under 35 U.S.C. §101 for blockchain technologies even when those patents are claiming the use of specialized, non-generic computer hardware”; and
• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s holding “that a California federal judge wasn’t wrong to deny an injunction request after declaring that a ‘substantial question of validity’ had been raised over a patent covering a way of testing the durability of a heart valve.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims regarding a military officer’s retirement status and affiliated retirement pay. The second precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court in a patent case and affirms the district court’s indefiniteness determination but vacates and remands its nonobviousness determination. Both of the nonprecedential opinions address appeals from judgments of the Eastern District of Texas granting motions for summary judgment of noninfringement, and the Federal Circuit affirms in both cases. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the reopening of a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and selected text from the order.

This past Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Court is reviewing the Federal Circuit’s dismissal of an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In particular, the Supreme Court will consider whether the statutory deadline to file an appeal from the MSPB is jurisdictional. This is our argument recap. 

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 13 panels to consider 65 cases. Of these 65 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 46. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

As we’ve been highlighting, four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a judge in the District of Colorado to grant a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Amarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. In this patent case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a judge in the District of Delaware to grant Hikma’s motion to dismiss Amarin’s inducement claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. This is our argument preview.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Lemon Bay Cove LLC v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which held that the denial of a wetland permit by the United States Army Corps of Engineers was not a categorical taking or regulatory taking of Lemon Bay’s land. Judges Reyna, Mayer, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.