FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court addressed the Board’s determination that a petition for inter partes review and a reply brief were insufficient on their merits. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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. Since our last update, however, five new petitions have been filed with the Court: one in a veterans case, three in patent cases, and one filed by a pro se petitioner. As for previously filed petitions, one supplemental brief and two waivers of right to respond were filed. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion resulted from an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and in the opinion the court addressed when ex parte reexamination is available to a requester who has already made the same arguments in an inter partes review proceeding. The second precedential opinion resulted from an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and in the opinion the court addressed issues related to government contract claims. The nonprecedential opinion resulted in another appeal from the PTAB. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, a new brief was filed. As for requests for rehearing en banc, the court received a new petition raising a question relating to the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of non-obviousness in patent cases. The court also received an amicus brief supporting rehearing to address the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court denied petitions for rehearing in two other patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The opinion addresses issues related to willful infringement, enhanced damages, and attorney fees. 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 predicting how a recent Federal Circuit decision [will] likely provide a route for judges and plaintiffs in patent cases to circumvent an international treaty that creates hurdles when serving complaints on foreign defendants”;
• an article analyzing “the unsettled and contentions nature of [patent] infringement in the skinny-label context”; and
• an article report discussing how last week the Federal Circuit issued an order “forcing U.S. District Judge Alan Albright to move [a] patent dispute . . . from his court in Waco, Texas, . . . to Northern California.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued three nonprecedential orders. All three orders ruled on to petitions for writs of mandamus to transfer cases out of the Western District of Texas. The court denied petitions in two of the orders, but granted the petition in one of the orders. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.  

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer six actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for extraordinary relief in a veterans case and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the orders and a link to the erratum.

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

• a blog post arguing that “the Federal Circuit should release all dispositive orders on its website, not just decisions labeled as ‘opinions’ or summary affirmances under Rule 36”;
• an article discussing how “[p]atent owners are looking to past [forum selection clauses in] agreements they signed with the companies they are accusing of infringement to head off challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• another blog post discussing an opinion addressing whether “ATJs [Administrative Trademark Judges] [are] unconstitutionally appointed principal officers like their APJ cousins”; and
• an article observing “that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8–the rule setting forth the pleading standards applicable to civil actions in federal court–in patent cases is hard to reconcile with modern U.S. Supreme Court precedent on Rule 8.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s arguments. Here is the introduction to the opinion.