FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the court held in part that “the trial court properly applied the stabilization doctrine to this case and did not clearly err” in determining the timing of when the taking accrued. The court, however, vacated the trial court’s denial of crop damages and its finding that the government did not causally contribute to certain flooding and remanded the case. In addition, this morning the court also released an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the erratum.

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

• an article highlighting five important Federal Circuit rulings so far in 2023;
• a blog post contemplating the idea of intellectual property rights for “AI creations”; and
• an article for discussing the impact of the recent precedential Federal Circuit decision in a patent case addressing obviousness.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in a veterans case. In the opinion, the court held “that the claim-filing effective-date provisions of [38 U.S.C.] § 5110 are unconstitutional” as applied to the appellant based on his “very rare set of circumstances.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. In addition, late yesterday and this morning the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, three waivers of the right to respond were filed in pro se cases; a reply brief was filed in a patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in a pro se and a veterans case. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect I”), a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding patent claims unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases and both addressing obviousness. Additionally, the court released five nonprecedential orders, one transferring a case to another court, one summarily affirming a judgment, one granting a motion to remand a case, and two dismissing appeals. Additionally, the court released four summary affirmances and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals, summary affirmances, and the erratum.

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 obviousness, a response brief addressing standards governing reissue, and denials of two petitions presenting questions related to definiteness and claim construction. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE, an antitrust case. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing tying and trade secret claims. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders, three transferring cases to other courts and two dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the transfers and one of the dismissals and a link to the other dismissals.

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

• an article and a blog post discussing potential impact of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit;
• a blog post highlighting “five tips for IPR practice” in light of the Federal Circuit’s ruling in a precedential case regarding inter partes review; and
• an article about the impact on attorney fee motions after the Federal Circuit’s decision in a patent case dealing with attorney fees and non-taxable costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.