FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit heard “arguments at law schools and courthouses around the San Francisco Bay Area this week”;
• an article highlighting “the intense debate over restoring injunctive relief for patent holders,” noting how “two different camps within the pro-strong-patent rights community have emerged”;
• an article discussing yesterday’s oral argument in a case addressing whether inter partes review proceedings may consider abandoned patent applications published after the filing date of a patent under review; and
• a blog post discussing how the Patent Office “recently terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent use of a practitioner’s signature.”

Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1),” which directs that court to “take due account” of the application of that rule. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms the judgment of the Court of International Trade, which dismissed a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The first nonprecedential opinion vacates judgments of non-infringement and invalidity and reverses an exceptional case finding in a patent case. The second nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal in a pro se case. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation. While no new petitions were filed, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in six patent cases, one takings case, and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first two come in veterans cases. The third comes in federal employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new response to a petition raising questions concerning inducement of infringement and skinny-labeling along with the denial of five petitions raising questions related to issue preclusion and public disclosures under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Connecticut, while the second precedential opinion comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Both nonprecedential opinions affirm orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order comes in a patent case involving a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

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

• a blog post discussing a case set for argument this week in which the “Federal Circuit is set to decide an important issue regarding the scope of prior art that can be considered during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• an article reporting how the Supreme Court recently “turned down several petitions seeking review of decisions in patent cases, including appeals dealing with double patenting, patent eligibility and Patent Trial and Appeal Board procedures”; and
• an article highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision vacating and remanding a case because the lower court “wrongly dismissed” a claim “seeking a refund on tax penalties.”

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 67 cases. Of the 67 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 50 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel.  Notably, half of the panels will convene in and around San Francisco. These panels will take place at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law; the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco; Stanford Law School; Santa Clara University School of Law; and the San Francisco and San Jose locations of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The remaining six panels will convene at the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.