FedCircuitBlog

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Christensen v. United States, a second tax case from March’s argument week that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the United States is appealing a decision of the Court of Federal Claims allowing two American citizens residing in France to claim a foreign tax credit. Judges Chen, Hughes, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post suggesting the “Federal Circuit has become, in the space of two years, one of the most consensus-oriented appellate courts in the federal system”;
• a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision seemed to deal with a “narrow administrative law issue,” but the “effect of the decision is far broader”;
• an article discussing how USPTO Director John Squires “issued numerous orders . . . holding that patent challenges should not move forward” because the challengers took “inconsistent claim construction positions” in court and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article reporting how “more than 100 companies filed new lawsuits” since the Supreme Court “declared most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs illegal.”

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Bruyea v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the United States is appealing a decision of the Court of Federal Claims allowing American citizens residing in Canada to claim a foreign tax credit. Judges Chen, Hughes, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, three Rule 36 judgments, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The first nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case appealed from a district court. The second comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims in a takings case. The third comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the judgments and dismissals.

Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released three precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 judgment. Two of the precedential opinions come in patent infringement cases, one reviewing an order excluding an expert report on damages and the other reviewing construction of an alleged means-plus-function claim and a judgment of noninfringement. The third precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims in a takings case. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in an ex parte appeal of a rejection of a patent application by the Patent and Trademark Office. The other nonprecedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article arguing President Trump’s new replacement tariffs “almost certainly violate the law”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit rejected “Tesla Inc.’s constitutional challenge to a Trump administration rule that makes it harder to contest the validity of patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a blog post addressing a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that “genetically engineered cultured host cells containing recombinant nucleic acid molecules are not directed to a natural phenomenon, and therefore are patent-eligible subject matter”; and
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit recently “held unlawful the U.S. International Trade Commission’s practice of automatically treating as confidential the questionnaire responses it receives in injury investigations.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update five amicus briefs supporting the petitioner in a patent case were filed. As for pending petitions, since our last update, three new petitions were filed in a trade case and two pro se cases; an amicus brief supporting the petitioner in a patent case was filed; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a takings case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 judgment. Both opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility. One new response was filed in response to a petition raising a question related to unfair competition claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit denied two petitions for en banc rehearing that raised questions related to the written description requirement and venue, respectively. Here are the details.