FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released a precedential opinion, a nonprecedential opinion, five nonprecedential orders, and an erratum. Both opinions come in cases decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the five orders transfer appeals, two summarily affirm, and one dismisses a case. Here are the introductions to the opinion and links to the transfers, summary affirmances, erratum, and dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing how an en banc petition “is drawing new attention to the question of when altered DNA becomes different enough from nature to be patented”;
• a blog post suggesting a recent Federal Circuit “opinion is a useful teaching vehicle on the patent/trade-secret interface”; and
• an article explaining how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot, or ASAP, program introduces earlier visibility into the prior art landscape by providing applicants with an automated search results notice prior to substantive examination.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and six nonprecedential orders. Two of the five opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one from a district court; two come in pro se appeals of decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; and the fifth comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Two of the six orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus; two transfer appeals; another affirms a judgment; and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to all the opinions and orders other than the dismissal, along with a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to eligibility and Article III standing; two amicus briefs were filed in case raising questions related to obviousness and apportionment of damages; a panel granted in part a petition for panel rehearing; and the court denied two petitions for en banc rehearing raising questions related to obviousness and another petition filed pro se. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and an errata. Here are links to the dismissal and the errata.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd., a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, A.L.M. Holding appeals a district court’s conclusion that it lacked Article III standing. Judges Chen, Stark, and Cunningham heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released one nonprecedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a jury finding of misappropriation of trade secrets, counterfeiting, breach of contract, and patent invalidity. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a companion case to the precedential opinion and discusses costs and attorneys’ fees. The other nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post suggesting the “Federal Circuit’s tightening of the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of nonobviousness has become one of the most consequential doctrinal developments in patent law over the past decade”;
• an article reporting that “Big Tech companies and the lawyers who represent them are expressing disappointment that the nation’s top patent court is declining to rein in changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”
• a blog post highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit decision “underscores the critical importance of rigorously documenting inventorship, maintaining contact with all contributors, and proactively managing inventorship determinations before patent applications are filed”; and
• an article analyzing another recent Federal Circuit decision that found an “accused device to be plainly dissimilar” to a “claimed design . . . even though lay observers might initially see close visual similarity.”

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the patent owner, Ollnova, appeals a denial of requested prejudgment interest, and the accused infringer, Ecobee, cross-appeals the lower court’s decisions on jury instructions and multiple issues including eligibility, infringement, damages, and marking. Judges Chen, Stark, and Cunningham heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and one errata. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a judgment in a patent infringement case. Three of the four nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims; the fourth comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the three nonprecedential orders is a denial of permission to appeal; another is a denial of petitions for writs of mandamus directed toward the Patent and Trademark Office; the third is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to the dismissal and errata.