FedCircuitBlog

As we reported earlier today, the Federal Circuit issued its precedential opinion in Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank, holding that the “[Federal Reserve] Banks are ‘persons’ who may petition for post-issuance review under the AIA.” This holding marks the Federal Circuit’s first significant interpretation of last year’s Supreme Court opinion in Return Mail v. U.S. Postal Service.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order denying en banc rehearing in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., a nonprecedential opinion in a Veterans case, and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the text of the order and the introductions to the opinions.

This afternoon the Federal Circuit announced various modifications to its operations, “including suspending the filing of certain paper copies, establishing modified filing and service procedures for parties appearing pro se, authorizing changes to how the Clerk’s Office provides assistance to the public, and providing additional guidance to counsel concerning the scheduling of future court hearings.” The court’s announcement includes links to an administrative order and three notices outlining particular modifications to the court’s procedures. The court said it was making these changes “to continue court operations in response to ongoing public health emergencies.”

Today the Federal Circuit announced that, in light of the coronavirus pandemic, the court has canceled its Judicial Conference previously scheduled for May 15, 2020 in Washington DC, including all related events. The court indicated it hopes to reschedule the conference.

This afternoon the Federal Circuit issued an “Updated Public Advisory Concerning the Federal Circuit’s April 2020 Sitting.” In it, the court announced it is converting all remaining oral arguments still scheduled for April to telephonic hearings. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. Notably, in a concurrence in that case, all three judges on the panel express their view that, were the relevant statute ambiguous, they “would find that no deference is due” to a prior opinion issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Precedential Opinion Panel. Here are the introductions to the majority and concurring opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a “Public Advisory Restricting Access to the National Courts Building,” which puts in place restrictions effective at noon Eastern time today. The Advisory indicates these restrictions “will help promote the safety and health of both court staff and members of the public conducting court business.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a “Public Advisory Concerning the Federal Circuit’s April 2020 Sitting.” In it, the court announced that it was taking three different approaches to its cases scheduled for oral argument next month. Here are the details.

As we reported earlier today, this morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in In re Google LLC ordering that the case be dismissed or transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for lack of venue. We have been tracking the case given the filing of an amicus brief in support of Google. As previously noted in our oral argument recap, Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the case for lack of venue. The district court had found venue appropriate based on the presence of Google’s servers in the district. A panel of the Federal Circuit disagreed with that basis for venue, and Judge Wallach filed a concurring opinion. Here is a summary of today’s order and some reflections on both the panel’s decision and Judge Wallach’s concurrence.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard one case that attracted amicus briefs, National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the court considered whether language added by the E-Government Act requires “a reduction in PACER fees” (the plaintiffs’ position), locks “in the status quo” in terms of fees (the district court’s holding), or authorizes an “expansion in fees” (the government’s position). Last Monday, the plaintiffs-appellants (National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center, and Alliance for Justice) and the defendant-appellee United States presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Lourie, Clevenger, and Hughes. This is our argument recap.