FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that a read-aloud service is now available on the Federal Circuit website. The service is intended to provide an accessibility tool for users who have trouble reading, have visual impairments, or other limitations accessing information. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in patent case appealed from the District of California. The opinion reverses a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement based on the Federal Circuit’s claim construction. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to overrule the District of New Jersey’s decision to transfer a patent case to the Western District of Texas . Finally, the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order as well as a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• a blog post detailing how “[t]otal utility patent grants are down about 7% for calendar year 2021”;
• another blog post explaining how, “[o]n January 6, 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new program with the goal of increasing examiner efficiency”;
• yet another blog post noting that this Blog “has an interesting post, including some briefs, on [this] week’s oral argument in SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd.“; and
• an article discussing a recent takeaway in which a “Federal Circuit’s decision affirms the principle that competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable bid protest.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first opinion affirms a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims for failure to prosecute, and the second affirms a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to prosecute. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments and one erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and erratum.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions to hear any case decided by the Federal Circuit. As for still-pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a veterans case challenging the Federal Circuit’s alleged failure to apply the pro-veteran canon of statutory interpretation. Additionally, a petitioner filed a reply in support of its petition, which raised questions relating to the application of equitable tolling for recovering retroactive disability benefits. Moreover, since our last update, one waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case. Lastly, the Supreme Court denied four petitions: two in patent cases, one in a veterans case, and one filed by a pro se petitioner. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. The opinion addresses the district court’s award of damages for breach of contract claims in a patent infringement case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update the court denied a petition that raised a question related to the standard for enhanced damages. That’s it. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The opinion affirms the denial of a 100% disability rating. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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 “[t]he Federal Circuit is poised to provide guidance in the coming year on two patent law issues that have befuddled district courts”;
• another article detailing how “the Federal Circuit (CAFC) . . . affirmed a district court’s ruling that Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 is not invalid” over a dissent by Chief Judge Moore;
• an article detailing how the Federal Circuit “denied Cisco’s bid to rehear a panel decision reinstating a $57 million enhanced damages award against . . . SRI International Inc. over cybersecurity patents”; and
• another article noting that the Federal Circuit “was the first federal appeals court to announce a switch to remote oral arguments for its January session in response to the spike in COVID-19 cases.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The opinion affirms the Court of International Trade’s calculation of an antidumping duty rate. Here is the introduction to the opinion.