FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explains why it affirms a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in LaBonte v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, LaBonte filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims to challenge a denial by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records of his claim for a retroactive medical retirement. The Court of Federal Claims, however, dismissed Mr. LaBonte’s claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, reasoning that the Board did not have authority to grant LaBonte the relief he was seeking. In an opinion authored by Judge Schall and joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the case. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute. Here is text from the order.

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

• an article arguing “[a] review of the Federal Circuit’s motion panel assignment procedures makes clear that a party can time its filing to take advantage of the makeup of a current motion panel or wait for a future panel [that] has more judges considered favorable on the issue of venue mandamus”;
• an earlier article by the same authors arguing that “what is often portrayed as a rogue district court at odds with a supervising appellate court is in fact two things quite different–yet familiar to patent practitioners”; and
• a third article addressing the Federal Circuit’s denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to grant Director Review of decisions not to institute inter partes review and post grant review.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a Public Notice of Show Cause Order to Unseal Certain Paper Case Records. Notably, in the notice the court announced that it intends to unseal a significant number of sealed paper case records so that it may send these records to the National Archives and Records Administration. To do so, the court sua sponte opened a new case and sua sponte issued an order identifying the relevant paper case records–essentially hundreds of cases with records predating the court’s transition to its electronic filing system. The court noted how Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(a)(1) indicates that, after five years following the end of all Federal Circuit proceedings, the court may direct parties to show cause why confidential filings should not be unsealed and made available to the public. The court is now making use this procedure. The court indicated that impacted individuals interested in keeping case records sealed must show cause no later than 60 days from August 17, 2022, the date of the order. Here is the full text of the announcement as well as text from the order. The list of cases is included in the order, linked below.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) does not infringe certain patent claims and also affirmed the district court’s denial of a declaratory judgment of infringement. Late yesterday the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court by a pro se petitioner, and a brief in opposition was submitted in a patent case related to the written description requirement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. The Federal Circuit reversed-in-part, affirmed-in-part, and remanded. It reversed as to a specific claim, concluding that the district court erred in not applying inter partes review estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) as to that claim. It affirmed the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s request to amend its selection of asserted claims to add claims not at issue in the inter partes review. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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

• an article discussing how the Fifth Circuit “said it would ‘continue to disagree with the Federal Circuit’ over whether it has appellate jurisdiction over” appeals of Walker Process patent fraud cases;
• a blog post highlighting how patent law’s “defense of assignor estoppel has been in flux”; and
• a third article detailing how Koss Corp. is “vying to save one of its patents for wireless earphones and headphones that has been at the center of its infringement suits against Apple Inc. over its AirPods wireless earbuds.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the United States Patent and Trademark Office to “accept and consider” requests for USPTO Director rehearing of decisions denying institution of inter partes review and post grant review. Notably, Judge Reyna wrote a concurring opinion. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute. Here is text from the orders.