FedCircuitBlog

When a patent applicant challenges the U.S. Patent and Trademark’s rejection of her patent application, and in particular takes that challenge into federal district court rather than straight to the Federal Circuit—in order, for example, to introduce new evidence and obtain de novo review—must the applicant pay the USPTO’s personnel expenses of the district court proceeding? Indeed, must the applicant pay those expenses, including attorneys’ fees, regardless of whether the applicant wins or loses in court? Those are questions the Supreme Court will consider Monday, when it holds oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., the first of six Federal Circuit cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear during the 2019 Term.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in an international trade case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Of the six pending merits cases, there was no new activity. Three new petitions, however, were filed, along with a supplemental brief, two response briefs, and an amicus brief.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one precedential opinion in a government contract case (with an opinion from Judge Hughes concurring in part and dissenting in part), one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and three nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases, including recent petitions related to patent eligibility and the constitutionality of inter partes review, a response to a petition on the issue of standing to challenge Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions confirming patentability, and an amicus brief in support of another petition.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one Rule 36 judgment. 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 news related to the Federal Circuit’s October hearings, a comment on the Trump administration’s stance on a petition for certiorari by Google, a discussion on the distinction between preemption and novelty/non-obviousness, and a note on a recent amicus brief filed by U.S. Steel in a case being watched by the Cato Institute.

The Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions today.

This Tuesday the Supreme Court returns from its summer hiatus, holding its first conference of the 2019 Term. Here is a list of the petitions that have been distributed for Tuesday’s conference in cases decided by the Federal Circuit, organized by subject matter, along with some comments.

This week and next Monday the Federal Circuit will hold 17 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 47 cases. Notable cases include Evolved Wireless LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., In Re FCA US LLC, X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., and VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.