FedCircuitBlog

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 some of the most common claim drafting issues “for biotech, chemical and pharma patent applications”;
• an article about how “VLSI Technology LLC plans to appeal an administrative ruling that wiped out 12 of its microchip patent claims”; and
• another article about “Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc. . . . [urging] the Federal Circuit to undo a federal injunction forcing it to delist a narcolepsy drug-related patent.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. Two dismiss appeals and one denies a motion to stay a mandate. Here is \ text from the order and a link to the dismissals.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following since the court scheduled an en banc hearing. The case presents the question of the relationship between the education benefits in the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and in particular whether veterans such as Mr. Rudisill with two or more periods of qualifying military service are entitled to 48 months of benefits. The court issued a majority opinion reversing the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which had held that veterans are entitled to 48 months of benefits when they have multiple periods of qualifying service. According to the Federal Circuit, these veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits. Two judges, however, issued dissenting opinions agreeing with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is our summary of the court’s opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that specific patent claims are unpatentable as obvious, the sale of a generic product would not induce infringement of the patents, and the sale of the generic product would not directly infringe other patents. Notably, Judge Newman dissented without opinion. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Georgia, and one denies a motion to dismiss and instead transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Ohio. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the orders.

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, two new petitions were filed in a trade case and a patent case, and one petition was denied in a pro se case. Here are the details. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of a veteran’s challenge to the reduction of his disability rating. Notably, Chief Judge Moore dissented. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Finally, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. The first transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; the second transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and the third dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court issued a long-awaited opinion last week in a veterans case addressing the question of a veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. As for petitions in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to the written description requirement and received two amicus briefs supporting rehearing in the same case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. In it, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s claim construction, dismissal of a claim, and grant of summary judgment that trade dress is invalid, vacates a denial of summary judgment on an inequitable conduct defense, reverses a grant of summary judgment of invalidity, and remands the case. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released two 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 blog post about the Federal Circuit granting a petition for writ of mandamus to transfer claims from the Western District of Texas to the District of Colorado;
• an article about the California Institute of Technology urging the Supreme Court “not to take up a $1.1 billion patent infringement dispute between the university and Apple”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit denying a “motion to stop . . . performance of a $133 million US Navy base operations support services contract.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and a nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Wisconsin. In it, the Federal Circuit reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remands the case. The second precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirms the denial of a request for benefits. Notably, Judge Reyna filed a concurring opinion. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a precedential order in a Vaccine Act case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In its order, the Federal Circuit identifies certain issues raised in the appeal to be addressed in new briefings. Finally, the court released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the dismissal.