FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, in the only pending en banc patent case, which presents a question concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses, the opening en banc brief was filed, the Federal Circuit issued an order indicating parts of the opening brief went beyond the scope of en banc rehearing, and five new amicus briefs were filed. Additionally, a new petition was filed raising questions related to reliance on expert testimony in applying the doctrine of equivalents. Finally, the court denied two petitions raising questions regarding the written description requirement, obvious-type double patenting, and attorney fees. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contract case that includes takings arguments and three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

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

• a report covering how Judge “Newman is appealing her suspension and has also filed a motion to unseal documents related to an investigation which ultimately led to her being temporarily removed from the bench”;
• an article highlighting how Judge Newman “continues to fight against a suspension from the bench that was handed over to her by colleagues who believe she is ‘mentally unfit’”;
• an article describing how “[t]wo key amicus briefs were filed on Thursday, December 12, backing Judge Pauline Newman’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the dismissal of her case against the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)”; and
• an article discussing how in a recent amicus brief “six retired judges argued” that “the Federal Circuit circumvented the US Senate and dealt a blow to the independence of all federal judges when it suspended 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The first two precedential opinions come in government contract cases, the third is a patent case, and the fourth is an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims in a case involving an application for correction of military records. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a veterans case. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit a precedential opinion in a trade case, three nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases, and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion affirming a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a pro se case. The Federal Circuit also released a summary affirmance under Rule 36. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders. One denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, one transfers a case, two dismiss appeals, and one grants an agreed motion to remand a case. Today the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and eight nonprecedential orders. Two of the opinions affirm decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third affirms a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the orders denies a petition, four transfer appeals, one dismisses an appeal, one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and one grants an agreed motion to remand a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus, along with links to the transfers, dismissals, and agreed remands. This month’s motions panel had a busy couple of days!

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, a nonprecedential opinion, a summary affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36, and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The first precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Virginia. The Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of no invalidity based on a prior offer for sale in the United States. The second precedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment that rejected illegal exaction claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit affirmed a holding invalidating claims for obviousness. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and dismissal.

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 Newman, “the nation’s oldest active federal judge, asked the D.C. Circuit to end a suspension imposed by her colleagues that prevents her from hearing cases at the Federal Circuit”;
• remarks by retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel on Judge Newman’s case at the D.C. Circuit;
• an article highlighting how Illinois Senator Dick Durbin and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have taken opposite sides on the PREVAIL Act; and
• an opinion piece by retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel suggesting “lawmakers should do everything they can to pass” the PREVAIL Act “promptly.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions and three nonprecedential opinions. The first precedential opinion comes in a trade case and affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands the case to the Court of International Trade. Notably, Judge Stark concurred in part and dissenting in part from the majority’s judgment. The second precedential opinion comes in a case challenging a final rule of the Department of Veterans Affairs that changed how the VA pays for noncontract ground and air ambulance transports for eligible beneficiaries. The Federal Circuit set aside the final rule. The third precedential opinion comes in a patent case. In this third case the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the District of Delaware over challenges to two of the lower court’s claim constructions. The fourth precedential opinion comes in a case dismissed by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. All three of the nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions.