FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus related to a motion to transfer, and another nonprecedential order denying petitions for writs of mandamus also related to motions to transfer. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

• Federal Circuit Says University Can’t Be Pulled Into Patent Suit – In Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor College of Medicine, sovereign immunity protected a university from being an involuntary plaintiff in a patent suit, but the suit could still proceed without the patent owner.
• Moderna Loses Challenge to Arbutus Patent on Vaccine Technology – Moderna could appeal to the Federal Circuit after a loss that might create obstacles in developing a coronavirus vaccine.
• NFL Team Loses Race to the Trademark Office, but It Might Not Matter – Being first in line to trademark the Redskins’ new team name won’t matter without objective evidence of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce at the time of filing

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a Merit Systems Protection Board case and a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, Judges Wallach and Taranto affirmed the denial of a motion for rehearing by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In particular, they confirmed that the Board may consider § 101 eligibility challenges to proposed substitute claims in inter partes review proceedings. Judge O’Malley filed a dissenting opinion based on her view that the case is moot. Here is a summary of the opinion and dissent.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court affirmed a district court’s ruling that sovereign immunity barred involuntary joinder, but reversed its ruling that, as a result, the lawsuit could not proceed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b). The three judges on the panel (O’Malley, Newman, and Taranto) splintered in their reasoning. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion and the separate concurring and dissenting opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a trade case involving an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case addressing the ability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to consider eligibility challenges to proposed substitute claims in inter partes review proceedings. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions or orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued an important order granting a motion to vacate and remand in In re Boloro Global Ltd., a case we have been following. In the order, the court extended the application of Arthrex to ex parte patent examination appeals, determining that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Administrative Patent Judges were unconstitutionally appointed in this context (in addition to inter partes review as in Arthrex). Here is a summary of the case and the order.