FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, and two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the judgments.

• Federal Circuit Keeps Expanding Appointments Decision – The Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. decision was broadened to also encompass ex parte appeals according to the Federal Circuit’s precedential ruling in In re Boloro Global Ltd. on Tuesday.
• BofA’s $173M Refund Suit Belongs In Claims Court – The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded Bank of America Corp. v. United States to the Court of Federal claims because the district court lacked standing under Section 1346(a)(1) of the U.S. Judicial Code.
• Fitbit Given Another Shot At Nixing Biometrics Patent – Fitbit, pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion in Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., was granted a second chance to invalidate all of Valencell’s claims because of an erroneous standing ruling by the PTAB.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The following five new petitions were submitted to the Court: (1) Primbas, et al. v. Iancu, (2) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., et al., (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., (4) Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., and (5) Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Also, in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Willowood, LLC submitted its reply to Syngenta’s brief in opposition. Willowood claims Syngenta’s brief avoids the key issues raised in the petition.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court received two waivers of right to respond for the petitions of Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank and Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in a Tucker Act case and patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a response to a petition in a case raising questions related to standing; a new invitation for response to a petition in a case raising questions related to Jurisdiction over an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and the denial of a petition raising questions related to inequitable conduct and obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Apple loses seven-year import duty legal fight – The Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. Government’s categorization of Apple’s iPad Smart Covers, thereby subjecting the models to tariffs.
• Federal Circuit Affirmed Win Against Database Platform – Hulu successfully challenged a database patent in Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC.
• Federal Circuit Vacates Denial of Attorneys’ Fees – In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit held that the district court must consider the objective unreasonableness of an infringement claim in determining whether to grant attorneys’ fees.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene ten panels to consider about 50 cases. This month, like last month, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, the court will hear fewer oral arguments than normal, with only about 18 cases being argued this month. Of the argued cases, only one case attracted an amicus brief.