FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights Oracle’s brief to the Supreme Court in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., an argument that eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC should be overruled, and the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in In re Google LLC that Google’s servers do not establish venue.

As a reminder, once a month we provide an update on activity in patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. (There we also highlight non-patent cases that attract amicus brief, but only once those cases have been scheduled for oral argument.) Today, with respect to patent cases, we highlight one new opinion, a recent oral argument, and three upcoming oral arguments.

The Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions today in light of the federal holiday, Washington’s Birthday.

This month we highlight four papers, two related to institutional design and two related to patent law. The first paper addresses the creation of specialized courts and why these courts persist. The second paper focuses on the problem of myopia in comparative institutional analyses of legal institutions and the need to incorporate comparative failure analysis. The third and fourth papers address patent law, respectively, the creation of a database to conduct empirical studies of patent litigation in U.S. district courts, and the U.S. Patent Office’s attempts to provide clarity in the area of patent eligibility through guidance documents. 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a trade case involving antidumping duties. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights a news report on the Supreme Court temporarily staying a Federal Circuit mandate, a New York Times article discussing a recent denial of en banc rehearing, and comments by former Chief Judge Paul Michel on the Federal Circuit’s obviousness standard.

As we reported earlier today, this morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in In re Google LLC ordering that the case be dismissed or transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for lack of venue. We have been tracking the case given the filing of an amicus brief in support of Google. As previously noted in our oral argument recap, Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the case for lack of venue. The district court had found venue appropriate based on the presence of Google’s servers in the district. A panel of the Federal Circuit disagreed with that basis for venue, and Judge Wallach filed a concurring opinion. Here is a summary of today’s order and some reflections on both the panel’s decision and Judge Wallach’s concurrence.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in In re Google LLC granting a writ of mandamus ordering the case be dismissed or transferred. The Federal Circuit also issued three precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases. Here is the text of the order and the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a granted application to stay the Federal Circuit’s mandate to allow the prospective petitioner to challenge the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that it had waived the argument that succeeded in Arthrex, two new petitions including one related to the exhaustion doctrine and design patents, and several responses to petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here is the judgment.