FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released an opinion in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of Texas. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s claim construction as to one term, vacates its construction as to another term, and remands the case. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

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, one new petition was filed in a patent case; a party waived its right to respond in another patent case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied nine petitions. Here are the details. 

Christa Laser is a professor at Cleveland State University College of Law, where she teaches intellectual property, innovation law, and other topics. Her research includes topics of patent law, federal courts, and civil procedure. She was previously a patent trial and appellate litigator at the law firms Kirkland & Ellis and WilmerHale. In the following guest blog post, she discusses her recently published article, Rethinking Patent Law’s Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction. In this article, she proposes radical changes to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction: retaining the Federal Circuit for some appeals but, notably, returning appeals from district courts in patent cases back to the regional circuits. She also urges adoption of the Hruska Commission’s National Court of Appeals, sitting between the Supreme Court and regional circuits.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal.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:

• an article about Intel “doubl[ing] down on its Federal Circuit bid to ax a $2.18 billion jury verdict against it”;
• a blog post about a Patent Trial and Appeal Board judge withdrawing from an inter partes review proceeding; and
• another article about the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office making trademark applications related to green technology and climate change eligible for reduced fees.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over the case. The Federal Circuit also 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:

• an article about the Federal Circuit allowing Chief U.S. Judge Colm Connolly of the District of Delaware to “inquire into compliance with his standing orders into ownership transparency” in patent cases;
• another article about the Federal Circuit denying a motion to enjoin a litigant “from commercially marketing generic versions of [a] sleep disorder drug”; and
• a third article about a Federal Circuit decision regarding whether under a pretrial discovery order in a patent case is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Secretary of Defense v. Raytheon Co., a government contract case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the government appealed a decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals relating to Raytheon’s compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulations regarding whether lobbying and acquisition and divesture costs may be passed on to the government. Specifically, the Board rejected the government’s argument that these costs should not be passed on to the government. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Moore and Taranto, the Federal Circuit reversed this ruling and remanded the case for a determination of the costs Raytheon must pay. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit vacates the Board’s affirmance of an examiner’s final rejection of claims. The second opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Affairs. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the denial of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. The Federal Circuit also released six nonprecedential opinions. One denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to transfer a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California; one grants a petition for a writ of mandamus to undo an order by the Eastern District of Texas transferring two cases to the Central District of California; and four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene twelve panels to consider 47 cases. Of these 47 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 38. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. Of the argued cases, two cases attracted amicus briefs. One concerns judicial review of factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. The other addresses whether the President exceeded his statutory authority in an international trade case. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.