FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article detailing “orders [that] are the latest in a recent series from the Federal Circuit disagreeing with Albright’s analysis of transfer requests”;
• a blog post similarly discussing “[f]our new mandamus orders from the Federal Circuit stemming from Judge Alan Albright’s court in Waco Texas”;
• another article emphasizing the “the importance of contract principles in arbitrability determination[s]”; and
• another blog post explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit [is] continu[ing] its stringent (if misguided) application of the scope of subject matter eligibility by invalidating claims.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and it addresses the Board’s determination that claims are invalid for obviousness. The second opinion comes in veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and it addresses the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denial of compensation to a veteran. 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 the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Two new petitions, however, were filed with the Court: one in a trade case and one in a takings case. As for previously filed petitions, one brief in opposition and three reply briefs were filed with the Court in patent, Tucker Act, and takings cases. Additionally, the government filed a waiver of right to respond in a pro se patent case, and the Court denied a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued five nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The third and fourth come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And the fifth comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of North Carolina. Finally, the court issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to the proper interpretation of a forum selection clause and whether it impacts inter partes review. The court also invited a response and received three new amicus briefs in a case that raised a question related to the written description requirement. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions relating to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s analysis of the non-obviousness requirement, inter partes review estoppel, and the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The second comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of mandamus, and a writ of quo warranto. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders 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 “[t]he Federal Circuit and Judge Albright have been in a constant state of tension over case transfers”;
• another article discussing how Judge Albright was recently “[c]ritical of recent Federal Circuit decisions”; and
• a third article discussing how “Judge Leonard P. Stark will bring a wealth of patent experience to the Federal Circuit.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion reviewing a judgment of the District of Delaware holding patent claims invalid for lack of eligibility. The Federal Circuit also issued four nonprecedential orders. The first order dismisses a petition for a writ of mandamus after notification by the parties that mandamus relief is no longer necessary. The other three orders all grant petitions for writs of mandamus directing the the Western District of Texas to transfer patent cases to the Northern District of California. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Today we highlight four recent papers related to the Federal Circuit. The first, co-authored by retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, focuses on the transformation of the U.S. patent system over the past fifteen years. The second analyzes the justiciability of litigation upon the invalidation of patents. The third reviews the Federal Circuit’s patent eligibility decisions in the seven years following the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank. The fourth examines the availability of Federal Circuit decisions. Here are more details on these papers.

Last Friday, the court heard oral argument in Brown v. United States, a tax case. We have been following it because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, the Browns ask the Federal Circuit to overrule the holding of the Court of Federal Claims that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the Browns did not attach a power of attorney to amended income tax returns filed by their agent with the Internal Revenue Service. The United States argues “[t]he Browns’ refund claims admittedly violated the taxpayer signature and verification requirements,” and the United States maintains this means “the Browns’ refund claims were not ‘duly filed’ with the IRS before the Browns sued.” The arguments attracted an amicus brief from the Center of Taxpayer Rights in support of the Browns. Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll heard Friday’s argument. This is our argument recap.