FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a piece arguing that “it’s time for the U.S. Supreme Court to address” the Federal Circuit’s “excessive use of Rule 36”;
• a blog post discussing how a recent petition for certiorari “highlights an interesting procedural quirk in Illinois law that may require Supreme Court intervention to resolve an important state law question about the scope of litigation privilege”;
• a report covering how the Supreme Court recently declined “to hear a meat slicer company’s challenge to the authority of the Federal Circuit to overturn jury verdicts in patent cases”; and
• a report covering how a “US Patent and Trademark Office executive who managed key appeals at the agency’s tribunal and previously served as solicitor accepted President Donald Trump‘s voluntary resignation off[er] for federal employees.”

As we highlighted on Monday, three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc. In it, Rebecca Curtin appeals a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded that she is not entitled to oppose UTH’s application to register the mark RAPUNZEL under a test known as the zone of interests framework. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and six nonprecedential orders. Today’s lone precedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Court of International Trade. Today’s lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, three dismiss appeals, two transfer cases, and one grants a motion for a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in three patent cases and three pro se cases. The Court also received a waiver of the right to respond in one of those patent cases and an amicus brief in another patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a government employment case on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia, and the other comes in a veterans case on appeal form the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, two of the orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus and the other two transfer appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. As for granted petitions, a reply brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. As for pending petitions, a pro se litigant filed a petition, a response was filed to a petition presenting a question related to waiver of alternative grounds for affirmance, and the court denied a petition presenting a question regarding vicarious liability for direct infringement. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The lone precedential opinion comes in a case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a piece written by former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel assessing how, in his view, “patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are not sufficiently dependable”;
• a blog post discussing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “offers a glimpse into the evolving relationship between utility and enablement in patent law”;
• a report providing an overview of the “Federal Circuit’s reversals and vacaturs in 2024 [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] appeals; and
• a blog post examining how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently “overturned an examiner’s rejections of an application directed to a quantum computing invention.”

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Stupp Corporation v. United States. In it, Stupp Corporation appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained the Department of Commerce’s finding upholding the application of a particular test in the differential pricing analysis to calculate antidumping margins. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the other comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.