FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post discussing how, “in many IP cases involving foreign defendants,” circumventing Article 5 of the Hague Convention may provide a “sense of victory [that] might be premature”;
• an article addressing “whether portfolio patent licenses can be sufficiently comparable to a single-patent license for the purposes of supporting a patent damages verdict”;
• another blog post detailing the Federal Circuit’s clarification of “the distinction between conduct warranting enhanced damages and the lesser standard of willful infringement”; and
• a report about how the Federal Circuit “revived a military security contractor’s bid for reimbursement of a penalty charged by Afghanistan’s government.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions. Two of the opinions came in veterans cases appealed from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The third opinion came in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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, which began this week, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, however, two new petitions have been filed with the Court: one in a veterans case and one filed by a pro se petitioner. As for previously filed petitions, one brief in opposition and two waivers of right to respond were filed. Finally, the Court denied 22 petitions following its first conference of the new term. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a writ of mandamus to require transfer of a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Finally, the Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order 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, five new amicus brief were filed in support of the appellant. As for requests for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received four new petitions raising questions relating to patent eligibility and claim construction. The court also invited a response to a petition that raised questions concerning the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the appropriate timing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and one in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• a blog post explaining how a company that was “denied institution on three inter partes review (IPR) petitions . . . could not simply ‘repackage’ arguments raised in its IPR petition to challenge the same patent via ex parte reexamination”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit keeps on laying down rules of the road for U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas when it comes to transferring cases to California”;
• a post discussing whether a recent Federal Circuit opinion “may be hinting that willful blindness isn’t enough, by itself, for willful [patent] infringement”; and
• another blog post noting tension between how the Federal Circuit reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and its own practice with respect to Rule 36 summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four precedential opinions: two in patent cases appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and one in an international trade case appealed from the U.S. Court of International Trade. The court also released a nonprecedential order requiring the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order, and a link to the erratum.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. Here’s what you need to know. The court will convene 15 panels to consider about 66 cases. Notably, none of this week’s cases attracted any amicus briefs. Of the 66 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 50, and the court will continue hearing oral arguments in person. Here is a list of this week’s cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed in the Court of Federal Claims, addressing arguments that the destruction of firearms under new federal statutes constituted a government taking. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion addressing the same issue. Notably, Judge Wallach concurred only in the result in both cases. Finally, the court issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case granting a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to vacate an order transferring the case from its Austin Division to its Waco Division. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.