FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, one sua sponte vacating a preliminary injunction and the other dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer a case out of the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas to the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas; four nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases; two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals; and two summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the nonprecedential order vacating the preliminary injunction, and the precedential order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, along with links to the summary affirmances and dismissals. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court. With respect to granted cases, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. While no new petitions were filed, one new reply in support of a petition was filed in Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case addressing the on-sale bar. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States, a government contract case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Textron appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or in the alternative for summary judgment. In particular, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Textron’s claim as time-barred under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Judges Prost and Clevenger, affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that Textron’s claim had accrued by early 2013 and was untimely when filed in 2020. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a trademark case on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the order. 

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. As for granted petitions, a response brief was filed in a pending en banc case raising questions regarding how to establish standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. As for pending petitions, a new petition has been filed in a patent case; a response has been filed to a petition raising multiple questions regarding patent ownership and a district court’s authority to prohibit parties from sharing part of a claim construction with a jury; and an amicus brief has been filed in support of a petition raising 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. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the other comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. 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:

• an article arguing that, because the Supreme Court’s two-step inquiry for patent-ineligible “abstract ideas” did not define “abstract ideas,” it has had “disastrous consequences”;
• a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit’s requirement that “convoyed goods ‘function together with the patented article,’ and not merely be sold along with the infringing product as a matter of convenience, differs from the rule followed in the U.K., France, Japan, and Germany”;
• a report highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit case “reaffirmed a critical principle in patent law: When a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication is that they are distinct elements”; and
• a blog post discussing how an en banc case at the Federal Circuit “presents important questions about statutory interpretation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Both nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion as well as links to the orders.   

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 10 panels to consider 58 cases. Of the 58 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 36. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, only one case that is scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here’s what you need to know about that case.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Of the precedential opinions, one comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a trade secret case on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.