FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. Both of the opinions come in international trade cases appealed from the Court of International Trade. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, one grants a motion for summary affirmance, one transfers an appeal, and two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition, along with links to the other orders.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. With respect to these cases, since our last update we highlight one new opinion in government contract case, one new patent case raising a question related to Article III standing, and one new argument recap in a patent case involving a challenge to a district court’s claim construction. Here are the details.

Today the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders and an errata. Two of the orders transfer appeals, while the third dismisses an appeal. Here are links to the orders and the errata.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. appeals a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. Judges Taranto, Chen, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third is a design patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Tennessee. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, the petitioner filed his reply brief in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a government contract case; a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a takings case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in the same takings case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and five nonprecedential opinions. In the precedential opinion, the court reversed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on an incorrect interpretation of the patent statute in the context of determining what qualifies as prior art for use in an inter partes review proceeding. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a vaccine case, one in an international trade case, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and two in patent cases appealed from district courts. Notably, Judge Stark filed additional views in the international trade case, indicating potential disagreement with the court’s law governing differential pricing analyses, while Judge Prost filed a concurring opinion in the nonprecedential opinion reviewing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court received a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility. The court also issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising a question regarding Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the relevant patent has already expired. The court has also recently denied two petitions. The first denied petition raised a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can form the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. The second denied petition raised questions concerning expert testimony to prove infringement of a means plus function element, claim construction, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and an errata. Of the two precedential opinions, one comes in a government contract case and the other comes in a trade case. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. And the lone nonprecedential order transfers a case. Here is are the introductions to the opinions and order as well as a link to the errata. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced that the Clerk’s Office and Circuit Library will be temporarily unavailable for public services and support for several hours on April 25. Here is the full text of the announcement.