FedCircuitBlog

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. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in an Equal Access to Justice Act case and two in patent cases raising questions related to eligibility and enhanced damages; members of Congress filed an amicus brief in an employment law case that involves interpretation of the Reservists Pay Security Act; the government submitted a brief in opposition in a case concerning the Tucker Act and another brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the non-obviousness requirement; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied review in four cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. The opinion reversed a finding of invalidity. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in the fourth case, Judge Prost wrote a concurring opinion to explain that had a patentability challenge been preserved it likely would have succeeded. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders concerning, respectively, a dismissal for failure to prosecute and two voluntary dismissals. 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 explaining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas, which dismissed a complaint based on ineligibility of the asserted patent claims;
• another article detailing how the Federal Circuit released a corrected decision that provides clarity on the question of estoppel based on inter partes review; and
• a third article assessing how “[e]x parte reexaminations have re-emerged as an increasingly important component of patent litigation and licensing negotiations.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The opinion affirms the Board’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an employment retaliation claim. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received four new petitions raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings, motivation to combine prior art references, and the presumption of nexus in a non-obviousness analysis. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and a response to a motion to expedite issuance of the mandate in a case raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. The court also invited a response to the petition already mentioned that raised a question related to motivation to combine prior art references. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential orders. The first denies a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Northern District of California seeking to order the district court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The second denies a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a discovery order in the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order late in the day yesterday granting a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the orders.

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

• an article explaining how “Zaxcom has petitioned the court for rehearing en banc, arguing that the CAFC’s precedent . . . ‘confused the law’ regarding a rebuttable presumption of nexus”;
• another article discussing how “[a] split US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that US chemical company BASF is able to be sued” for alleged infringement; and
• a blog post discussing how, “[i]n a new petition for writ of certiorari, Cisco asks for guidance on whether enhanced damages under Section 284 require ‘egregious infringement behavior’ or instead is it enough to find ‘deliberate or intentional infringement.’”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The opinion affirms a finding lack of jurisdiction for an appeal under the Whistleblower Protection Act and Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a combined petition for panel and en banc rehearing. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight three opinions: the first in an Equal Access to Justice Act case, the second granting petitions seeking writs of mandamus challenging orders of the Western District of Texas regarding transfer motions, and the third in a trademark case. We also highlight a response brief filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.