FedCircuitBlog

We previously reported that the Federal Circuit proposed to amend several Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and the Practice Notes to three rules, which would take effect on December 1, 2022, if adopted. After receiving public comments, however, the Federal Circuit today announced that it has decided to defer adoption of the proposed amendments until a later date. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims correctly interpreted the relevant statutes and that the lower court’s denial of review of state garnishment orders does not violate due process. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions from the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to anticipation and two responses to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. The court also denied three petitions raising questions related the standard for an award of attorneys’ fees, inter partes review estoppel, and assignor estoppel. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Wisconsin; the second comes in a copyright, trademark, and patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; a brief in opposition was filed by the government in response to petitions in three takings cases; and a reply brief was filed in a case concerning judicial disqualification. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s decision that specific claims are unpatentable, reversed the Board’s construction of the phrase “used for electrical interconnection,” and remanded the case. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware; and the third comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and one transfers an appeal to the District of Maryland.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that the court issued Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments. Notably, masks are no longer required to be worn when entering the National Courts Building and connected buildings. Here is the full text of the announcement with links to the relevant protocols and order.

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

• a blog post about “an appellate court ruling that many believe will be very damaging to the United States’ life sciences innovation sector”;
• an article about how “US Patent and Trademark Office rules for reducing the term of a patent survived a challenge at the Federal Circuit”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit recently “affirmed the constitutionality of the [manner of appointment of the] Merit Systems Protection Board’s administrative judges.”

On November 1, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Secretary of Defense v. Raytheon Co., a government contract case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the government appeals a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals relating to Raytheon’s compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulations regarding whether lobbying and acquisition and divesture costs may be passed on to the government. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Taranto. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s final written decisions determining that some but not all of the challenged claims were not unpatentable. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, two nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. The first order summarily affirms, and the second grants an unopposed motion to dismiss a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinions, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the order granting dismissal and the Rule 36 judgment.