FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for panel rehearing and en banc rehearing. The petition comes in a patent case appealed from the District of New Jersey. Notably, Judge O’Malley wrote a dissenting opinion, and Judge Newman dissented without opinion. Here are the introductions to the order and the dissenting opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new amicus brief supporting rehearing in a case that raises a question related to the standard for enhanced damages. The court also denied a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

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

This morning the Federal Circuit released a Notice of New Revised Protocols for In-Person Argument. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from an arbitration decision. The opinion addresses a grievance regarding a former employee’s removal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for alleged unacceptable performance. 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 Law360’s “picks for the top trademark rulings of 2021”;
• another article detailing the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board priority determination;
• another article explaining a Federal Circuit decision “[a]ddressing obviousness in the context of method of treatment claims using particular drug dosages”; and
• another article assessing “homes, cars & IP: the valuation method intriguing patent lawyers.”

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

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 granted certiorari in a patent case, but notably it did so only to vacate the Federal Circuit’s judgment and remand the case for further consideration of an alleged Appointments Clause violation. Other than that, since our last post one reply in support of a petition has been filed in a veterans case and a waiver of right to respond has been filed in a patent case. Additionally, the Court denied two petitions in cases involving takings claims. 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, decided partially en banc, addresses evidentiary standards applicable in veterans’ cases. Judges Reyna, Newman, and O’Malley filed a separate opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part with respect to the part of the opinion decided by the en banc court. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a nonprecedential order related to the opinion decided in part by the en banc court as well as two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order 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 detailing how “[a] South Korean nutritional supplement company correctly lost its BF-7 trademark registration”;
• another article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit has refused to revive Polycom Inc.’s attempt to undo part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision”;
• a blog post assessing how “‘[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction’”; and
• yet another article discussing how the Federal Circuit has recently provided “an important new data point in the evolving timeliness rules for bid protests filed with the Court of Federal Claims.”