FedCircuitBlog

In February, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. On appeal, the parties presented arguments concerning whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly construed certain claims, correctly found certain claim elements in the prior art, whether its analysis of secondary considerations of non-obviousness was correct, and whether the Board correctly found substitute claims to be patentable. Former Chief Judge Paul R. Michel filed an amicus brief encouraging the court to take the time to clarify the court’s law regarding the non-obviousness requirement, while US Inventor, Inc. also filed an amicus brief arguing the Board disregarded industry praise in finding that the claims were obvious. Judge Taranto authored a unanimous opinion on behalf of himself and Judges Lourie and Schall affirming the Board’s judgments. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in consolidated patent cases appealed from the International Trade Commission and Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit addressed a finding by the Court of Federal Claims that a lawsuit seeking a refund on paid taxes was not timely filed. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases appealed, respectively, from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Northern District of Ohio. The third comes in a Tucker Act case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Notably, in this third case Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of New York. The second comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning its jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Last week, late in the day on Friday the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing and issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. The court noted that Judges Newman and Stoll were recused based on a conflict of interest that was identified by the parties after oral arguments were made and judgment was entered. Judges Moore and Chen replaced Judges Newman and Stoll on the panel. The court admonished that the parties should have notified the court about the conflict sooner and warned that the Federal Circuit expects the utmost candor towards the court concerning conflicts. Here is text from the opinion.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. The case addresses whether the ITC abused its discretion in refusing to modify or rescind a civil penalty after a patent was found to be invalid. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion affirms the Board’s determination that patent claims were obvious. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order concerning attorneys who violated the court’s protocols issued in light of COVID-19. Specifically, while the in-person oral argument protocols allowed only arguing counsel and no more than one attendee to be present, the parties in question brought two arguing counsel and two attendees in violation of the protocols. Notably, the court did not sanction the attorneys, but indicated that “the bar is on notice that this court takes compliance with these protocols very seriously and that sanctions will likely be imposed if a future violation of the protocols takes place.” Here is the introduction to the order.