FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit today announced that the most recent amendments to the Federal Circuit’s Rules of Practice go into effect today. The court also provided links to updated rules, forms, and guides. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

On December 9, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether “a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.” The Federal Circuit held that, “[b]ecause Mr. Feliciano’s service does not qualify as an active duty contingency operation, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a), the Board properly denied differential pay.” This is our argument preview.

Late Friday the Federal Circuit granted a petition for en banc rehearing in Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States, a government contract case originally decided by the Court of Federal Claims. The question presented relates to standing under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). That statutory provision grants the Court of Federal Claims “jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting . . . to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” The question presented is: “Who can be an interested party objecting to any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1)?” Here is the full text of Friday’s order granting en banc rehearing. We will report more on this case later this week.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 two new opinions. One comes in a government contract case raising questions related to breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and recovery of certain termination-for-convenience damages. The other comes in a patent case raising questions related the propriety of an antisuit injunction. The other update is new briefing in another patent case raising questions related to whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment of patent eligibility, noninfringement, and denial of damages. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed. One comes in a patent case raising a question under the Administrative Procedure Act relating to inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other petition comes in a pro se case. The Court also received a new brief in opposition in a case concerning appellate procedure, an amicus brief in a patent case, and waivers of the right to respond in two other patent cases. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in three patent cases and one pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions in two cases raising the same question related to claim construction. Additionally, the court denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two cases raising questions about eligibility and enablement of prior art. Here are the details.

Following the court’s September announcement of proposed amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice, today the Federal Circuit announced that the court “adopted amendments to Federal Circuit Rules of Practice 21, 27, 30, 32, 35, and 40; Practice Notes to Rules 15, 28, 30, 35 and 40; and Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rules Introduction and Rule 5.” As we discussed in September, among other things the court is adding a practice note highlighting how it “prefers that reply briefs respond to the response brief rather than repeating what is in the principal brief” and “favors reply briefs that do not use the full word length when not necessary.” It also is adding a new requirement regarding the table of contents for appendices, requiring the table of contents to identify how the relevant document was designated in the reviewing tribunal (such as the docket or other record number). Here is the full text of today’s announcement with links to, among other things, a summary of the adopted amendments.

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

• an article discussing last week’s Senate markup hearing where lawmakers announced that they plan to “delay consideration of both the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (PREVAIL Act)”;
• an article reporting how U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal announced that “she will leave the office in mid-December ahead of the incoming administration of Republican President-Elect Donald Trump”;
• a blog post highlighting an upcoming en banc review by the Federal Circuit that will “address fundamental questions about the reliability standards for expert damages testimony in patent cases”; and
• an article examining the law surrounding patent marking after a recent Federal Circuit decision “seemingly revived a private actor’s right to bring a cause of action for false marking via the unfair competition and false advertising provisions of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.”

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case. In it, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1),” which directs that court to “take due account” of the application of that rule. This is our argument recap.

Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1),” which directs that court to “take due account” of the application of that rule. This is our argument preview.