FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions concerning actual reduction to practice and obviousness. The court also denied another petition raising a question related to obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Additionally, the court released two summary affirmances. Here is text from the nonprecedential order and links to the summary affirmances.

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

• two articles discussing a district judge’s urging for Judge Newman and her colleagues to use mediation to resolve their dispute related to her fitness to serve as a judge;
• a blog post featuring comments by former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel on the potential impact of the recently introduced Patent Eligibility Restoration Act; and
• a blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent grant of a petition for rehearing en banc in a design patent case addressing obviousness.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case. In it, the court vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board judgment that challenged claims were not unpatentable for obviousness. The court also released three nonprecedential orders, two dismissing appeals for untimeliness and one dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the dismissals for untimeliness, and a link to the dismissal for failure to prosecute.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene seven panels to consider 36 cases. Of these 36 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 27. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board addressing an individual right of action appeal under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The court also released released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

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

• two blog posts discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent grant of a petition for rehearing en banc in a design patent case addressing obviousness; and
• an article noting takeaways from a recent Federal Circuit opinion addressing how “the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board need not consider evidence submitted via incorporation by reference.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in an employment case. In it, the court vacated and remanded an arbitrator’s decision to remove the plaintiff from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released three nonprecedential orders, one transferring a case to a district court, one dismissing an appeal for untimeliness, and another also dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the transfer and dismissal for untimeliness, and a link to the other dismissal.

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. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Besanceney v. Department of Homeland Security. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a finding by the Merit Systems Protection Board that disclosures made by Besanceney, a criminal investigator for the Transportation Security Administration, were not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. This is our argument preview.