FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article about how “FedEx . . . entered into an agreement to end a suit accusing it of infringing three search queries and database processing patents, less than a week after the Federal Circuit threw out a Texas federal judge’s refusal to transfer the suit to Tennessee”;
• a blog post about a Retired Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit suggesting the Federal Circuit should go en banc more often to clarify patent eligibility law; and
• another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s resolution of a veterans case that clarifies “the general rule of deference to an agency’s interpretation and a pro-veteran canon.”

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

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, while no new petitions were filed with the Court, a party waived its right to respond in a patent case, the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case, and a reply in support of a petition was filed in a takings case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One vacates a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on the absence of a live controversy; one summarily affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims; and one dismisses an appeal from a federal district court for failure to prosecute. Here is text from the orders and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising a question related to the burden of persuasion in inter partes review proceedings. That’s it. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One dismisses an appeal and one grants-in-part a motion for summary disposition of a petition. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, 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:

• an article about the Federal Circuit denying a request for a rehearing in a case about whether “an artificial intelligence program” may be named an inventor; and
• another article about “[a] congressional push to let drug companies patent diagnostic tests and other biotech inventions” and its potential impact.

Three cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases attracted four amicus briefs. That case is Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States. It concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. The government appeals the CFC’s judgment, while Ideker Farms cross-appeals. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and granting a motion to redact aspects of a settlement agreement. Here is text from the order.

One case being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted two amicus briefs. That case is Behrens v. United States, which concerns a claim the federal government was liable for taking land for public use through the National Trails System Act. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation because the scope of the easement in question was broad enough to encompass railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail. This is our argument preview.