FedCircuitBlog

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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case, the Court requested a response to a petition in a patent case concerning obviousness, and two amicus briefs were filed in the same patent case concerning obviousness. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in three patent cases and one pro se case, and the Court dismissed the petitions in five pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecidential order. The opinion affirms a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. One of the orders dismisses an appeal, and another grants a motion to transfer a case to the Middle District of Alabama. The other three orders also dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and two of the orders and links to the three of the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions for rehearing in patent cases presenting questions related to patent eligibility and claim construction. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case being heard by the court en banc. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and, in the process, determining whether to adopt a more flexible test for analyzing design patent obviousness compared to the existing “Rosen-Durling” test. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Two of the opinions dismiss appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The other two opinions address appeals from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found certain patent claims unpatentable. The two orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and selected text from the orders.

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

• an article highlighting the “Federal Circuit’s sua sponte order informing future litigants that evading briefing limits by incorporating much larger documents will likely result in sanctions”; and
• an article discussing how “the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment” in a case involving “technology used in Facebook’s search interface.”

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

• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s ruling in In re Chestek PLLC that the “US Patent and Trademark Office’s process for making a rule that US applications must disclose a US domicile address . . . didn’t violate federal law”; and
• an article noting how the Federal Circuit judges “split on [the] indefiniteness analysis for [an] identity theft patent.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one precedential order, one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and two errata. In the precedential opinion—which addresses an appeal from a judgment of non-infringement by a district court—the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court incorrectly construed claim terms and thus vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The precedential order admonishes counsel for attempting to incorporate by reference multiple pages of argument from a brief in another case and warns future litigants against doing the same thing. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a patent and trade dress infringement case. The three nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and precedential order and links to the dismissals and errata.

This week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in In re Chestek PLLC, a trademark case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of Chestek’s trademark application based on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. In an opinion by Judge Lourie joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit upheld the rejection of Chestek’s trademark application. In particular, the court found the “USPTO’s decision to require the address provided by all applicants to be a domicile address was . . . not arbitrary or capricious for failure to provide a reasoned justification.” This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Another precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which denied a petition for cancellation of mark’s registration. The third precedential opinion vacates and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims due to impermissible fact finding. The nonprecedential opinion reverses and remands a grant of summary judgment of noninfringment by a district court in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.