FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in a patent case dismissing appeals and denying a petition for a writ of mandamus concerning a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute inter partes review despite the alleged applicability of a prior agreement by the patent owner to arbitrate patent validity disputes. Notably, Judge O’Malley concurred-in-part and dissented-in-part. Here are the introductions to the order and Judge O’Malley’s opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions raising questions related to tolling for post-trial motions, the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding, and a denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order transfer. The court also invited a response to a petition concerning deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Lastly, the court denied petitions in two cases relating to transfer and the standard for review for petitions for writs of mandamus and a third case relating to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

On August 26 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. Judge Stoll authored the panel’s opinion, which relates to damages law and the exclusion of expert testimony seeking to present a reasonable royalty analysis. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued nonprecedential opinions in two pro se cases appealed from the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The court also issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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:

• commentary on the swearing in of new Federal Circuit Judge Tiffany P. Cunningham;
• discussion of a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion applying the limitation on patent damages found in 35 U.S.C. § 287(a); and
• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s determination that appointments to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board do not violate the Appointments Clause.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions today on its website given the Labor Day holiday.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a case addressing the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims and in a patent case appealed from the District Court for the District of Delaware addressing claim construction. 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 report discussing the Federal Circuit’s refusal to consider a ruling addressing alleged venue manipulation;
• an article about a Federal Circuit opinion addressing alleged inequitable conduct in the procurement of a patent; and
• an article discussing difficulty in the application of the non-obviousness patentability requirement in the context of design patents.

On August 26 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Larson v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Reyna, and Hughes. The judges considered whether the court should overrule what Larson characterized as the Veterans Court’s prohibition of reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities. Judge Hughes authored the court’s opinion, which reversed and remanded the case back to the Veterans Court. This is our opinion summary. 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case addressing the jurisdiction of the United States Court of International Trade. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressing subject matter eligibility. Finally, the court also issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.