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 discussing a pending trademark case involving a rejection of a trademark for being “deceptively misdescriptive”;
• an article highlighting how, in a patent case, “former CAFC Chief Judge, Paul Michel, . . . filed an amicus brief . . . asking the full [Federal Circuit] to resolve ‘unintentional confusion and conflict’ in the court’s obviousness jurisprudence”; and
• another article discussing “a challenge to the $185 million in legal fees a U.S. court awarded . . . in an Affordable Care Act class action that secured $3.7 billion for health insurers.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. The opinion vacates and remands based on the finding of an incorrect claim construction ruling by the district court. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. The first order deconsolidates cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, dismisses some of the cases, and informs the parties how they are to proceed on the remainder of the cases. The second order summarily affirms a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a case for failure to pay the docketing fee. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, including a case set to be argued in two weeks, the court will convene 12 panels to consider about 58 cases. Of these 58 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 41. Of these argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: one patent case, one military records case, and one veterans case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Skaar v. McDonough, in which McDonough, the Director of Veterans Affairs, appeals a decision by the Court of Veterans Appeals certifying a class action of veterans. Skaar cross-appeals to argue the Court of Veterans Appeals misinterpreted equitable tolling and waiver standards to exclude from the certified class veterans who had not timely appealed past agency decisions. Amicus briefs in support of Skaar were filed by the National Veterans Legal Services Program and 15 Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, and Federal Courts Professors. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington. The opinion describes that the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case due to an incorrect claim construction ruling. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders. Two of the orders dismiss cases for untimely filings, and one grants an unopposed motion to remand for arbitration. Here are the introductions to the opinions and 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 how the Federal Circuit recently gave “the Patent Trial and Appeal Board more freedom to identify its own unpatentability grounds that could block requests to amend a patent”;
• an article explaining how the Federal Circuit recently reversed and remanded “a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that . . . claims were invalid as indefinite”;
• another article detailing how the “Federal Circuit is going to take a look at U.S. District Judge Alan Albright’s first decision invalidating a patent on eligibility grounds”; and
• yet another article assessing how “[t]he Arthrex appointments clause case is back before the [Federal Circuit] . . . calling into question not only Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions, but also hundreds of thousands of patents issued in the last 14 months.”

This week we are previewing three arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit. We are previewing these arguments because the underlying cases attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight LaBonte v. United States, a veterans case where LaBonte is challenging a “Court of Federal Claims decision that military correction boards established under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 may not grant disability retirement to service members whose ‘Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,’ a standard separation document known as a ‘DD-214’ form, contains reference to a court martial.” Two amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiff-appellant, LaBonte, one by Military Law Practitioners and another a joint brief by the National Veterans Legal Services Program and Protect Our Defenders. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit agreed that a claim was barred by a six-year statute of limitations. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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, since our last update there is no new activity to report. Furthermore, no new petitions have been filed. That said, the government filed two waivers of right to respond; a petitioner filed a reply in a case raising a question related to the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims; and the Court denied certiorari in five cases: two in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a trade case, one in a patent case, and one in a case filed by a pro se petitioner. Here are the details.

This week we are previewing three arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit. We are previewing these arguments because the underlying cases attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., in which Cisco appeals a finding that it infringed four patents held by Centripetal Networks, resulting in a judgement of over $2.75 billion. An amicus brief was filed by High Tech Inventors Alliance in support of Cisco. This is our argument preview.