FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a trade case, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the court issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

• Investors Eye Patents After ‘Extraordinary’ Damage Awards Run – The past year has seen several large damages awards in patent infringement cases but the Federal Circuit has overturned some of the larger awards.
• Federal Circuit Limits Venue for Hatch-Waxman Cases – The Federal Circuit ruled that venue was only proper in judicial districts sufficiently related to the submission of an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) and not where a generic drug could be distributed.
• Fed. Circ. Mulls Fate Of Wi-Fi Co.’s $8M Infringement Verdict – Oral arguments before the Federal Circuit took place on Friday for SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Ltd. reviewing a jury verdict of uCloudlink’s willful infringement.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued a precedential order issuing a writ of mandamus that directs the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent infringement suit to the Northern District of California. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of those cases, Euzebio v. Wilkie, the court heard arguments concerning the following veterans law issues: (1) whether “[t]he Veterans Court’s ‘direct relationship’ requirement is an erroneous legal standard for determining what facts are before the Board;” (2) whether “the Veterans Court erred in holding that it lacks the legal authority to look at relevant facts known to the agency for purposes of reviewing the Board’s decision;” and (3) whether “the Veterans Court misinterpreted the scope of VA’s duty to assist when it affirmed VA’s failure to develop the record with relevant facts concededly known to the agency.” This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a trade case, and a veterans case. The court also issued a nonprecedential erratum and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the erratum, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

• Fed. Circ. Asked To Keep Movie Theater IP Suit In Texas – Arguing that the case should stay in Texas, Intertrust Technologies Corp. asks the Federal Circuit to reject a petition from Regal Cinemas, AMC, and Cinemark to transfer the lawsuit to California.
• Nike Golf Club Patent Dispute Do-Over Weighed by Fed. Cir. Panel – Saso Golf, Inc. urges a Federal Circuit panel to send its patent infringement case back down to the lower court and assign the case to a new a judge, even though the original suit was filed twelve years ago.
• Fed. Circ. Affirms Chevron Loss In PTAB Interference – A split Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly construed a key term to find that the University of Wyoming Research Corporation was entitled to a patent involving a method for analyzing crude oil in an interference proceeding against Chevron.

Here’s the latest.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit also heard oral argument in Boeing Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force. We have been following this case because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, the court is considering whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in holding that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 252.227-7013 precludes government contractors from marking technical data delivered to the Government in a certain way. In particular, Boeing argues it should be permitted to mark technical data in a way that (a) recognizes the Government’s unlimited rights in the data, (b) does not restrict or impair the Government’s rights, and (c) restricts only the rights of third parties to use the data absent permission from the contractor or the Government. This is our argument recap.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Monk v. Wilkie, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted four amicus briefs. This case presents three issues: (1) Did the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2) in holding that a five-year delay in deciding a disabled veteran’s administrative appeal does not amount to an unreasonable delay; (2) Did the CAVC misinterpret and misapply the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in holding that such a five-year delay does not violate the veteran’s due process rights; and (3) Did the CAVC misinterpret the mootness standard in dismissing certain claims. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case. The Federal Circuit also issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• Two briefs in response to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Comcast in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and the second by the government in Strand v. United States.
• One waiver of right to respond to the petition in Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc. was filed with the Court by Tenant Turner.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.

Here are the details.