FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions in patent cases involving two of the same companies. In the opinions, the court addresses standing, anticipation, and obviousness. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This week we are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit. Each of these three cases attracted at least one amicus brief. Today we highlight a benefits case, Cross v. Office of Personnel Management. In this case, Cross asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a decision of the Merits Systems Protection Board regarding the denial of survivor benefits. In particular, the petitioner is claiming survivor benefits as a surviving former spouse when her deceased former husband failed affirmatively to re-elect survivor benefits during the few months between their divorce and his death. The appeal attracted an amicus brief filed by the Merit Systems Protection Board. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released opinions in two related patent cases, one a precedential opinion and one a nonprecedential opinion. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Northern District of West Virginia that certain claims are invalid for lack of written description. Judge O’Malley dissented. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review addressing the same patent. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

We are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a veterans case, Wolfe v. McDonough. In this case, the Secretary asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which “granted a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Ms. Wolfe on behalf of a class of claimants to invalidate 38 C.F.R. § 17.1005(a)(5) and require [the Department of Veterans Affairs] to readjudicate and grant claims for reimbursement of coinsurance and deductibles.” The government’s appeal attracted three amicus briefs, all arguing against the government’s position. This is our argument preview.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and the Appointments Clause. The court also invited a response to a petition that raised questions related to the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the assignment of patents. Here are the details.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit released a public version of a sealed precedential opinion addressing statutory and constitutional standing in a patent infringement case. While released yesterday, the opinion was buried on the Federal Circuit’s website given the date assigned to it—the date the court released the sealed version of the opinion in October. Here is the introduction to the newly-released, public version of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and in it the court affirms the PTAB’s decision over a partial dissent by Judge Linn. The nonprecedential opinions come in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders in what appear to be pro se cases. One order denied a petition for a writ of mandamus, one ordered transfer to the Third Circuit, and one dismissed a petition based on lack of jurisdiction. Here is relevant text from the three orders.

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

• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s trend of “directing Judge Alan Albright . . . to transfer a case to the Northern District of California”;
• a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of ineligibility for claims directed to a computer authentication method”;
• an article assessing how the Federal Circuit “[a]ddress[ed] venue in the context of a Hatch-Waxman case” and “explained that sending a paragraph IV notice letter to a company in the district is insufficient to establish venue”; and
• another article discussing a Federal Circuit ruling in a government contract case.