FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, both of which were dismissals. Here are links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new responses to three petitions raising questions relating to the authority of the International Trade Commission, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and the use of comparable licenses to calculate damages awards. The court also received two new amicus briefs supporting a petition relating to attorney fees and invited a response to the same petition. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising issues related to design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and personal jurisdiction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. It affirms a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims regarding attorneys fees. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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 legal battle between Judge Newman and “her fellow judges on the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who have tried to pressure her to step aside”;
• a blog post discussing a Federal Circuit opinion vacating an attorneys’ fees award in a patent case, an opinion authored by Western District of Texas Judge Alan Albright, who sat by designation;
• an article reporting on amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court “urging it to leave in place” a Federal Circuit decision regarding the application of the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine to patent term adjustments; and
• an article discussing a Federal Circuit opinion holding that patent law’s on-sale bar still applies to secret processes after the America Invents Act.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. Both orders are dismissals. Additionally, late in the day on Friday the Federal Circuit released an additional nonprecedential order vacating a panel opinion and, among other things, remanding the case to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here is the introduction to Friday’s nonprecedential order as well as links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. The opinion vacates and remands an award of attorneys fees by the District of Colorado in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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

• an article discussing a recent decision by the Federal Circuit addressing estoppel in inter partes review proceedings; and
• a blog post highlighting a view that the Federal Circuit has taken a “new approach to venue transfer petitions” in patent cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders, all of which were dismissals. Here are links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and nine nonprecedential orders. The opinion upheld a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Notably, one of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case to the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders, which were all dismissals. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In this case, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Veterans Court. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision denying a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The second nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a district court, which found that a patent claim is invalid based on indefiniteness. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.