FedCircuitBlog

Early this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Arltons appealed from a summary judgment entered by the Central District of California, which held that AeroVironment could not be held liable for infringement. AeroVironment cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Prost and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court. This is our summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, it includes an opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Judge Dyk. The other nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the orders rules on a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; the other rules on a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Patent and Trademark Office to to vacate non-institution decisions and reconsider petitions for inter partes review without relying on time-to-trial as a factor. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

As we’ve been reporting, four cases cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Christensen v. United States, a tax case. In it, the United States is appealing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims allowing two American citizens residing in France to claim a foreign tax credit. This is our argument preview.

As we have previously reported, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US, a design patent case. In it, Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC appeal a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. This is our argument preview.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing “[h]ow and why the conservative justices differed” in the Supreme Court’s tariff decision;
• an article highlighting how the “Supreme Court deliberated for months before moving to end the president’s unprecedented use of one tariff power,” but President Trump “put a different tariff power to unprecedented use almost immediately”;
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the question of “whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court’s claim construction”; and
• a blog post examining the claim that the Patent and Trademark Office is “singling out and stalling” selected patent applications “for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case and vacates a summary judgment of inequitable conduct and a summary judgment of no Walker Process fraud. The nonprecedential opinion comes in another patent case and affirms a summary judgement of patent ineligibility. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Titanium, LLC v. Zspec Design LLC, a trademark case. In it, Titanium appeals the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of its petition to cancel Zspec Design’s trademark registration. This is our argument preview.

One of the four cases cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March that attracted amicus briefs is Bruyea v. United States, a tax case. In it, the United States is appealing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims, which allowed an American citizen residing in Canada to claim a foreign tax credit. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case; a petitioner filed its opening merits brief in a patent case; and an amicus brief supporting the petitioner was filed in the same patent case. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; a brief in opposition to a petition was filed in a patent case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case; six amicus briefs supporting the petitioner were filed in a takings case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit released its opinion earlier this month in In re United States, a companion case to another case also styled In re United States, decided the same day in a separate opinion. This trade case attracted four amicus briefs. In it, the Federal Circuit considered the International Trade Commission’s appeal from a denial by the Court of International Trade of a motion. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the panel dismissed the case as moot. This is our opinion summary.