FedCircuitBlog

Today, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion and order in Judge Newman’s lawsuit, which asserts facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and the statutory provision creating circuit judicial councils. The opinion and order denies Judge Newman’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have “prohibit[ed] Defendants from continuing her suspension from new case assignments and from proceeding with any further disciplinary proceedings until the matter is transferred to the judicial council of another circuit.” The opinion and order also grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss all but three of Judge Newman’s claims based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Here is the introduction to the opinion and order.

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 “Judge Pauline Newman on Wednesday lost a bid to persuade the federal court system’s governing body to review her suspension from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit”;
• a similar article about how “Judge Pauline Newman . . . faces a difficult path to getting reinstated without complying with an investigation into her mental fitness”; and
• an article highlighting how the Federal Circuit “met to consider a design patent appeal en banc for the first time in more than 15 years.”

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

• an article arguing the “full Federal Circuit should reject an ill-conceived request by major players in the repair parts industry” after yesterday’s arguments in a design patent case; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit agreed “with a lower court’s conclusion that claims in an Eolas Technologies Inc. 1994 web patent weren’t actually valid, handing a win to Google, Amazon and Walmart.”

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

• an article discussing a “rare Federal Circuit en banc patent case” set for oral argument next week that “threatens” the current test for obviousness with respect to design patents; and
• an article indicating “the Federal Circuit could make the [International Trade Commission] a more appealing forum.”

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

• an article discussing attorneys for Judge Newman “urg[ing] a lower court in Washington . . . to allow her lawsuit to proceed against colleagues who suspended her from the bench last year”;
• a similar article highlighting how Judge Cooper “promised an order ‘sooner rather than later’ on what’s next for Judge Newman and the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article about a Federal Circuit ruling “that a patent suit against Honeywell International Inc. must play out on the conglomerate’s home turf of North Carolina.”

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

• a blog post discussing a recently filed petition for a writ of certiorari of a “May 2023 decision by the Federal Circuit that invalidated claims . . . covering method of treating Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder”;
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling “that a Georgia inventor’s car remote-starter patent that his company alleges was infringed by BMW AG is invalid in light of two previously published inventions”; and
• an article about how the Federal Circuit “denied Charles Bertini’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to decide his trademark cancellation case against Apple, Inc.”

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

• an article discussing Apple’s plan to “introduce watches without the blood oxygen monitoring feature” after the Federal Circuit “lifted a stay of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s ban on the original products”; and
• an article highlighting how “[f]our 2023 opinions concerning claim construction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit offer lessons on how patent prosecution can affect later litigation.”

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

• an article highlighting how “Apple cannot sell two flagship Apple Watch models in the U.S. . . . after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the company can no longer sell Series 9 and Ultra 2 Apple Watches with the blood oxygen feature”;
• an article about “an amicus brief filed Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” where a “federal judge in Delaware defended his authority to compel live testimony”; and
• an article discussing an “attorney representing Amazon at the Federal Circuit test[ing] the patience of U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Chen on Friday by speaking over another judge and refusing to answer direct questions.”

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

• an article discussing skepticism from Federal Circuit judges over “arguments that the former CEO of Trading Technologies International is entitled to nearly $1 billion damages because IBG LLC infringed the company’s dynamic trading display patents”;
• an article about the Supreme Court’s denial of “a petition asking the High Court to clarify patent eligibility jurisprudence under Section 101 since its 2014 ruling in Alice“; and
• a similar blog post discussing the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in three patent cases and commenting that this “means that the court is unlikely to hear a patent case this term.”

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

• an article about how “Apple and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have told the U.S. Supreme Court to reject [an] appeal claiming that Apple was wrongly allowed into patent challenges that doomed a $576 million judgment”; and
• a blog post highlighting the Federal Circuit’s “first precedential patent decision of 2024.”