FedCircuitBlog

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Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released one nonprecedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal.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 One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a companion case to the precedential opinion and discusses costs and attorneys’ fees. The other nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Bureau of Justice Assistance.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.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case–a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling–the petitioner filed its reply brief. As for pending petitions, since our last update two new petitions were filed in an Indian Tucker Act case and a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in a case addressing Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. All three nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. Two of the orders grant motions to transfer appeals; the other order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders and judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, four new amicus briefs have been filed in a case raising a question concerning a judge’s role in determining admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court also denied a petition for en banc rehearing in a case raising questions related to eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and one Rule 36 judgment. Both precedential opinions come in appeals in patent infringement cases, while both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and judgment.

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

• a piece outlining factors “behind the Patent Office head’s recent refusal to have the agency institute certain proceedings”;
• an article discussing two recent decisions that “show how parties can navigate the draconian effect of an exclusion order by pursuing the simultaneous paths of a Federal Circuit appeal and ancillary proceedings” at the International Trade Commission and before U.S. Customs & Border Protection “to adjudicate a design-around”;
• a blog post highlighting how a recent filing “shines a spotlight on a structural vulnerability in how post-grant review is functioning in practice”; and
• an article examining “the Federal Circuit’s evolving view of two key trade secrets issues: (1) whether information was readily ascertainable and therefore not a trade secret; and (2) how and when plaintiffs must sufficiently define their trade secrets.”