FedCircuitBlog

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

• a news post covering how the “nomination hearing to vet Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick . . . touched on several key points relevant to the intellectual property system”;
• a blog post discussing how the joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management requiring a return to office and hiring freeze “could significantly impact patent operations”;
• an article analyzing how the “Federal Circuit has been urged by startups and attorneys to reject calls by Google to tighten rules for admitting patent damages testimony” in the court’s upcoming en banc case; and
• a report suggesting “recent actions to purge diversity programs from the federal government and private sector could undermine one of the top objectives of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in recent years: expanding access to innovation.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Both nonprecedential opinions came in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismissed a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 15 panels to consider 71 cases. Of the 71 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 56 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The lone nonprecedential opinion came in a government contract case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. All five nonprecedential orders dismissed appeals.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 piece covering how “Howard Lutnick, President Donald Trump’s nominee for commerce secretary, labeled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s patent application backlog ‘unacceptable’ and committed to end what he called China’s abuse of the agency” in his Senate confirmation hearing;
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit recently held that the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has jurisdiction over expired patents brought before it in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• an news alert discussing how the New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed an amicus brief claiming that “[t]he Federal Circuit must either permit the unlawfully suspended Judge Pauline Newman to participate in consideration of EcoFactor v. Google, or else vacate the order granting en banc rehearing in this case”; and
• an article analyzing the “top 5 most important bid protest decisions of 2024.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and five nonprecedential orders. Both of the nonprecedential opinions came in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, both relate to patents being asserted by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in separate litigation. Of the nonprecedential orders, one addresses a notice of non-participation in an appeal in a patent case and the other four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order addressing the notice of non-participation in an appeal, as well as links to the dismissals.

As we’ve been mentioning, next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. On Wednesday, a panel will consider Farrington v. Department of Transportation, a case that attracted one amicus brief. In this case, Farrington challenges the Merit Systems Protection Board’s determination that she was not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. This is our argument preview.

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. While no new petitions were filed, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari in a veterans case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

As we highlighted yesterday, three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and seven nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Northern District of West Virginia. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in patent cases, and one comes in a government contract case. Of the nonprecedential orders released today, three address notices of non-participation in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and among other things these orders ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office whether it will intervene in the appeals to defend the PTAB’s decisions. Two of the other nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmance, while two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders addressing the notices of non-participation in appeals, as well as links to the grants of summary affirmance and dismissals.