FedCircuitBlog

This past Thursday, the court heard oral argument in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., an appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. We have been following the case because it attracted amicus briefs. On appeal, Kannuu argues that inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung should have been enjoined due to a forum selection clause in a contract among the parties. Kannuu contends that the district court erroneously denied its related motion for a preliminary injunction. The arguments regarding the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract attracted dueling amicus briefs. Judges Newman, Prost, and Chen heard Thursday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. In short, it was another light week at the court, with the court denying two petitions in related pro se cases. Here are the details.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit quoted the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as explaining that “‘the precise question the Court must answer in this appeal is: how does the law treat a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill under one period of service and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under an entirely separate qualifying period or periods of service?’” At the Federal Circuit, Judge Newman authored a majority opinion affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which disagreed with the Board of Veterans Appeals on this question. The panel held that “each period of service earns education benefits, subject to its cap of 48 aggregate months of benefits.” Judge Dyk concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with the panel’s holding regarding education benefits. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one addressing pleading requirements in a patent infringement case and the other reversing a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade over a dissent by Judge Reyna. Additionally, the court issued four nonprecedential opinions in two patent cases and two cases dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.

On Tiffany Cunningham’s Appointment to the CAFC: An Impeccable Candidate and a Rallying Call for More Diversity in IP – In a post on IPWatchDog, Emer Simic writes about Tiffany Cunningham, whose “confirmation [is] now imminent” and has “reached [a] historic milestone.”

Federal Circuit Resumes In-Person Argument With $1.2 Billion Cancer Drug Case – Scott Graham commented on the oral argument in Juno Therapeutics Inc v. Kite Pharma Inc., in which Chief Judge Moore “pressed [attorneys] repeatedly on whether . . .  [a] patent on a groundbreaking approach to cancer treatment . . . [is] sufficiently described.”

FBI Agent Who Fought VA for GI Bill College Benefits Wins Appeal; Case Could Help Vets Nationwide – In the Chicago Sun Times, Stephanie Zimmermann discusses Rudisill v. McDonough, where Jim Rudisill’s “successful legal battle could result in additional benefits for other long-serving veterans.”

Pentagon Cancels JEDI Cloud Contract After Years of Contentious Litigation – Jared Serbu, deputy editor of FederalNewsNetwork.com, reports that the “bitterly contentious saga over what was once envisioned [as] the largest information technology procurements . . . finally came to an end . . . as Defense officials said they would no longer pursue the [Joint Enterprise Defense infrastructure] JEDI Cloud contract.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. One affirmed an appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, while the other affirmed an appeal from the International Trade Commission. Here are links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This past Tuesday the court heard oral argument in Larson v. McDonough, an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, Larson asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what he characterizes as the Veterans Court’s prohibition of reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities. Judges Newman, Reyna, and Hughes heard Tuesday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

Federal Circuit Judges Signal Support for Facebook Patent Win – On BloombergLaw.com, Perry Cooper reports that judges of the Federal Circuit “appear to agree with Facebook Inc. that [certain] patents . . . are invalid as abstract.”

Fed Circ Probes Validity of Cancer Treatment Patent from $1.2 Bln Win – Blake Brittain reports for Reuters that a panel of judges for the Federal Circuit “grilled [attorneys] on the validity of a cancer treatment patent that netted them nearly $1.2 billion.”

En Banc: When Employees Leave with a Half-Baked Invention – On PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch discusses Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission and the case’s pending petition for rehearing en banc.

Federal Circuit Tears Up Road Map for Keeping Patent Cases in Texas – Scott Graham posted an article on Law.com reporting on how the Federal Circuit “ordered [Western District of Texas Judge] Albright to transfer patent actions brought by Ikorongo Technology LLC against Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to dismiss a claim based on laches. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Last week the Supreme Court completed its October 2020 term, with all cases from the term decided. As for the Court’s October 2021 term, currently the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. That said, many petitions are still pending. And, you may recall, the Court previously requested the views of the Solicitor General in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility. We are still waiting for the government’s brief in that case. And since our last update, one new petition was filed in a patent case, two respondents submitted waivers of right to respond in a patent case and a pro se case, and a petitioner filed a reply brief in a vaccine case. Here are the details.