FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s finding of copyright fair use in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. Justice Breyer authored the Court’s majority opinion, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch joined. Justice Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, which Justice Alito joined. Justice Barrett did not participate in the case. Here are the introductions to the majority and dissenting opinions.

• Full Fed. Circ. Won’t Review Motion Sensor Patent Fight – The full Federal Circuit chose not to disturb a panel’s decision to uphold part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that struck down several claims of a motion sensor patent.
• Good News/Bad News: Patent Owners and Petitioners Both Make Gains in CAFC Uniloc Decision – Experts analyze the effects of the Federal Circuit’s recent Uniloc 2017 v. Facebook Inc. decision that raised numerous estoppel issues.

Here’s the latest.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. As in the past several months, the court will hear its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Notably, however, this month the Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel rather than via telephone conference calls as in past months. In total, the court will convene 16 panels to consider about 61 cases. Of these 61 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 41. Of the argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs: one a veterans case and one a patent case. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders on its website this morning.

Guest Post by Blair E. Thompson

In 2020, the Federal Circuit addressed important questions regarding “pro-claimant” policies and rules governing the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also approved VA’s interpretation of its regulation regarding discharges due to “willful and persistent misconduct” and paved the way for challenges to VA’s internal adjudication policies and procedures manual.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus related to two district court cases involving contract disputes. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Guest Post by James M. Eisenmann

In a series of precedential decisions in 2020 (and early 2021), the Federal Circuit limited the impact of the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act — holding that U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) still may review the reasonableness of imposed penalties and that Veterans Affairs (VA) may not use 38 U.S.C. § 714 to remove employees for conduct or performance that occurred prior to the enactment of the Act. See, Sayers v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 954 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Harrington v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 981 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2020); and Brenner v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 19-2032 (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2021).

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received a response brief from Hologic in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a case that has been granted certiorari.
• The Court received two new petitions for writ of certiorari in Sowinski v. California Air Resources Board and Merit Medical Systems, Inc. v. Khan.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court in response to the petition in Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc.
• Five new amicus briefs were filed with Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petition in Simmons v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Here are the details.

The second and final case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc. In this patent case, New Vision appeals two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method reviews. New Vision contends the overall structure of post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act “creates impermissible incentives for the PTAB, its leadership, and the individual administrative patent judges (‘APJs’)” and that such temptation violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. It also argues that the PTAB “abdicated its obligation to exercise its discretionary authority in the face of [a] contractual obligation to not bring a PTAB challenge,” and that the APJs were unconstitutionally appointed. It also maintains that the PTAB erred in finding ineligibility. This is our argument preview.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders this morning on its website.