FedCircuitBlog

Yesterday afternoon, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order that dismissed a patent case. This morning the Federal Circuit did not post any opinions or orders. Here is a link to yesterday’s dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to the Federal Circuit’s review of the grant of a motion for attorneys’ fees. Additionally, the court invited a response to a petition raising questions regarding the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. Finally, the court denied a petition presenting a question regarding the effect of a remand overturning a holding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on which a patent owner relied in drafting amended claims. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. The first nonprecedential order denies a petition for writ of mandamus in a patent case. The second grants a motion to withdraw a mandamus position. The last two are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the first two orders and links to the dismissals.

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

• an article suggesting that, “although pursuit of an appeal to the Federal Circuit may under some circumstances prove to be quicker and less expensive, appeals to district courts are becoming increasingly attractive” ;
• an article discussing a recent petition in which an “owner of an invalidated background-check software patent urged the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the Federal Circuit’s suspension of 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman, whose absence on the court the company says deprived it of a potentially sympathetic ear”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision “holding that conclusory expert testimony is insufficient even for relatively simple technologies.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case and the second nonprecedential opinion appeals a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC. In it, Restem appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding that found challenged claims not unpatentable. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 one new opinion in a case raising a question related to se advertising counterclaims under the Lanham Act; two new cases, one a takings case and another a patent case; and new briefing in a case raising questions related to whether a district court erred in denying a motion to intervene and to unseal court records. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case. Here is the introduction to that opinion.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced that security fencing will be installed around the National Courts Building and surrounding area but that access to the court will still be available. Here is the full text of the announcement.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents were not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Hughes heard the argument. This is our argument recap.