FedCircuitBlog

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 has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit since our last update. One new petition, however, was filed with the Court in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. As for previously filed petitions, one amicus brief, three briefs in opposition, and one reply were filed with the Court in employment, trademark, patent, and takings cases. Additionally, the government filed a waiver of right to respond in a pro se case. Finally, the Court denied three petitions in Tucker Act, patent, and pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and two nonprecedential opinions in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued two nonprecedential orders. In the first order, the court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate an order transferring a patent case from the District of Colorado to the Western District of Texas. In the second order, the court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. Finally, the Federal Circuit released three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the Department of Veterans Affairs filed its en banc brief. As for requests for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received a new petition filed by a pro se party and denied three petitions related to venue, eligibility, and claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion addressing two consolidated appeals from judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments in cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 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 detailing how Judge Stark “has presided over slightly more wins for patent owners than accused infringers compared to federal judges nationwide”;
• another article expanding on how Judge “Stark’s Delaware court is one of the most active patent courts in the country, and also hears a wide range of other disputes involving major companies”;
• another article discussing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reversal of a decision where “no reasonable fact finder could find an expectation of success based on the teachings of that same prior art”; and
• a blog post emphasizing a recent trend of how “in recent opinions the Federal Circuit seems to have adopted the ‘(cleaned up)’ citation when citing ‘busy’ sources.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments in cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This past Tuesday, the court heard oral argument in Monroe v. United States, an appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. We have been following this Equal Access to Justice Act case because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, the United States asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what it characterizes as an abuse of discretion by the trial court in awarding attorney’s fees and expenses to the plaintiff-appellee. Monroe contends he “prevailed at each procedural stage of the litigation” and, as result, “a fully compensatory fee award was warranted.” The arguments regarding the award of fees and expenses in an EAJA action attracted an amicus brief in support of Monroe. Judges Moore and Chen heard Tuesday’s argument. Judge Clevenger was assigned to this panel, but he was not present for the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case, affirming the District of New Jersey’s judgment that the plaintiff did not establish proper venue under the patent venue statute with respect to the named domestic defendants and did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted with respect to the named foreign defendant. The Federal Circuit also released five Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a list of 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:

• two articles discussing how Chief Judge Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware will be President Biden’s second nominee to the Federal Circuit;
• another article detailing how “Judge Tiffany P. Cunningham, the Federal Circuit’s first addition to the judge lineup in six years, hit the ground running during her first appearance on the bench”; and
• a blog post addressing the Federal Circuit’s handling of venue and mandamus petitions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the first, a precedential opinion, the court reverses an obviousness determination. In the second, a nonprecedential opinion, the court affirms findings of anticipation and obviousness given a lack of error in claim construction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.