FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in DiMasi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a pro se vaccine case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal and to present oral argument. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Prost and Moore, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. This is our opinion summary.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight three opinions, two in takings cases and one in a vaccine case, and a summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. We also highlight reply brief in a patent case and oral arguments in two cases, a patent case and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

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

• an article providing a midyear report on “the most notable trademark decisions so far this year”;
• an article about the effects of a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in a trademark case dealing with tacking;
• a blog post summarizing takeaways from a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in a patent case addressing enablement, written description, and anticipation; and
• a blog post discussing the America Invents Act of 2011 and how it has allegedly given the Chinese government “a lethal tool for snuffing out the business interests of competitive American firms.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case holding that a failure to provide access to redacted information was a violation of due process. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released four nonprecedential orders, one granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss a cross-appeal, one dismissing an appeal as untimely, and two dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the grant of the motion to voluntarily dismiss and the dismissal for untimeliness, and links to the other dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a brief for the petitioner was filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case raising a question related to the First Amendment. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, one in a trade case and one in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released an erratum in a pro se vaccine case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. Here is the link to the erratum.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition in a pro se patent case and two new invitations for responses in patent cases raising questions related to obviousness and reduction to practice. The court also denied a petition in a patent case raising questions related to construction of alleged means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the inter partes review petitioner “has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable” as obvious. Notably, in this case, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries was substituted for Concert Pharmaceuticals as the appellant to reflect a recent merger. This is our argument recap.