FedCircuitBlog

As we have been reporting, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is In re Blaze Mobile, Inc., a patent case. In this case, Blaze Mobile appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which affirmed an examiner’s rejection of every claim of a patent during an ex parte reexamination. This case presents questions related to claim construction and non-obviousness. Notably, this case involves the same appellant and similar issues as the case we previewed yesterday, and this case will be argued immediately after that case. This is our argument preview.

Four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is In re Blaze Mobile, Inc., a patent case. In this case, Blaze Mobile, Inc. appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming an examiner’s rejection of every claim in a patent during an ex parte reexamination. This case presents questions related to claim construction and non-obviousness. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight one opinion in a takings case presenting questions of railroad easements; an argument recap in a taking case; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related to anticipation and obviousness as well as infringement and injunctive relief; and two new amicus briefs in the patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief. Finally, we highlight four upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article commenting on how a recent “verdict serves as a reminder of a fundamental reality in patent litigation: When a patented feature — even one representing only a small portion of the overall product — is incorporated into hundreds of millions or billions of units, it can create enormous financial exposure”; and
• an article highlighting how this week “the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list that included a denial of Google’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s . . . development of the ‘settled expectations’ doctrine at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, since our last update, five new petitions were filed in a patent case, a case arising under the Tucker Act, a case originally arising under the Indian Tucker Act, and two pro se cases; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a case involving copyright and government contract claims and a pro se case; two briefs in opposition were filed in patent cases; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases; and the Court denied five petitions. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article reporting how the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday “refused to take up a case in which Google argued that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has exceeded its authority by using the age of patents as a reason to refuse to review them”;
• a blog post highlighting how “eligibility is again about a fifth of the PTAB’s appeal docket . . . and the Board has nearly stopped raising Section 101 ‘new grounds of rejection’”;
• a blog post announcing how the publication of “Unfettered Invention: How the X Patents Sparked Early American Technology”; and
• an article noting how a recent motion in a patent case argued a “presentation of legal opinions” by retired judge Kathleen O’Malley of the Federal Circuit “was inappropriate.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition was filed in a patent case raising questions related to standing. The court also denied a petition for rehearing in a case raising questions about venue and appellate procedure. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the United States appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, which awarded the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority $633,150.90 for unpaid sewer charges. Judges Stoll, Cunningham, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, since our last update, one new petition was filed in a government contract case, one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a copyright case, and one amicus brief was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit “heard oral arguments in the Weymouth Kirkland Courtroom of the University of Chicago Law School” last week, “giving students, faculty, and other members of the community a chance to see the court in action”;
• an article highlighting how, “[f]ollowing the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of Judge Pauline Newman’s petition for certiorari in June, the Chief Justice of the United States has transferred Newman’s judicial misconduct case to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council”;
• an article commenting on how “Chief Justice John Roberts has handed 99-year-old U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman a lifeline in her yearslong fight against a suspension imposed by her colleagues, transferring the judicial disability dispute to a federal appeals court”; and
• an article noting how “[i]t took over three years, but the judicial conduct complaint against Judge Pauline Newman has finally left the building.”