FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post discussing the Solicitor General’s amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in a case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and
• an article highlighting takeaways from a recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit addressing analogousness of prior art references.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today given the Memorial Day holiday.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission and addressing claim construction, infringement, and invalidity. The court also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force, a government contract case that attracted an amicus brief. This case concerns whether the federal government’s resort to unilateral price determinations under two F-16 Aircraft contracts constituted government claims under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. In particular, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the government’s price modifications did not constitute government claims. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Mayer and Hughes, the court affirmed the Board’s judgment dismissing Lockheed Martin’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dixon v. United States, a tax case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal circuit reviewed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Dixon’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Clevenger and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. This is our opinion summary.

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

• an article commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi concerning patent law’s enablement requirement;
• an article highlighting the Biden administration urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in Apple v. Caltech, a case presenting a question about inter partes review estoppel;
• a post noting the effects of the Federal Circuit’s holding addressing inducement of infringement by so-called skinny labels in Teva v. GlaxoSmithKline after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case; and
• an article arguing the recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals addressing a limit on what qualifies as analogous prior art “adds to [the] toolbox for patentee prosecution and litigation success.”

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

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case involving analysis of pre-AIA first-to-invent provisions. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, along with a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition presenting questions related to patent reissue and the written description requirement; two new invitations for response to petitions presenting questions related to patent reissue, the written description requirement, and appellate jurisdiction; and denials of two petitions presenting questions related to the non-obviousness requirement and anticipation. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case dealing with attorney fees and non-taxable costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Here is the introduction to the opinion.