FedCircuitBlog

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 the Federal Circuit “affirmed the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)’s determination that [a] civil penalty . . . did not require modification or rescission following the subsequent invalidation of the asserted [patent] claims”;
• another article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit upheld an administrative patent tribunal’s decision invalidating some parts of a patent related to infrastructure for hydraulic fracking”;
• yet another an article assessing the “impact of [the Federal Circuit’s] TRUMP trademark ruling”; and
• an last article detailing how “[t]he federal court in Delaware has instituted revised procedures to reassign Judge Leonard P. Stark’s busy caseload as he gets ready to join the Federal Circuit.”

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 week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, and here’s what you need to know. The court will convene 11 panels to consider about 53 cases. Notably, none of this week’s cases attracted amicus briefs. Of the 53 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 38, and the court will return to hearing oral argument in person. Here is a list of this week’s cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions.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.

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

• an article “navigating a decade of the America Invents Act;” and
• a blog post discussing how the “Federal Circuit [held] that the PTO violated the First Amendment by denying registration to TRUMP TOO SMALL.”

Guest Post by Dr. Christal Sheppard

I am a patent law expert. However, a look at recent machinations in patent law, particularly in the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) leadership and the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), reveals that many of the issues at the heart of patent law disputes stem from the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), administrative law, constitutional law, and, of course, politics, politics, politics. As a patent expert, I have found myself talking about the APA so often that I unconsciously write Administrative Patent Act by mistake. The United States Supreme Court decision in Arthrex, regarding the composition of PTAB, is the most recent foray into the intersection of administrative law and patent law.1

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.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner submitted his opening merits brief in George v. McDonough, a case which raises a question related to clear and unmistakable error in the context of a denial of a veteran’s claim for benefits. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one raising a question in a takings case and two filed by pro se petitioners. The government filed a brief in opposition in a case concerning a government contract. The government also filed waivers of right to respond in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board as well as in a case submitted by a pro se petitioner. Finally, the Court denied certiorari in a patent case as well as in two cases filed by pro se petitioners. Here are the details.

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.