FedCircuitBlog

Four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative for summary judgment, in a government contract case. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential dismissal. The opinion addresses an appeal from a district court’s judgment that all asserted patent claims are directed to unpatentable subject matter. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal.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:

• an article about a petition requesting the Supreme Court to “weigh in” on the Federal Circuit’s “ruling that created a new standard for how courts should review challenges to design patents”; and
• an article discussing a Federal Circuit opinion that “vacated [a] district court’s final judgment due to an erroneous jury instruction on obviousness.”

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Celanese International Corporation v. International Trade Commission. This is a patent case that attracted an amicus brief in support of reversal. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the International Trade Commission that, under the post-America Invents Act on-sale bar provision, the sale of products made by a secret process invalidates a subsequently filed patent application on that process. Judges Reyna, Mayer, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It addresses an appeal from a district court’s denial of a motion for preliminary injunction in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board, Harrow v. Department of Defense. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a design patent case, a brief in opposition was filed in a veterans case, and the Court denied a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Ireland v. United States, a case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a decision by the Western District of Texas to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in an unemployment benefits case under the Little Tucker Act. Judges Lourie, Linn, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect Inc. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a judge in the District of Delaware that an out-of-state non-party was in contempt of court for disregarding an order requiring her to testify at a hearing. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential dismissals. The first precedential opinion comes in a case involving allegations of infringement of numerous patents and addresses appeals from a summary judgment of infringement of a subset of claims, from a jury determination that remaining claims were not infringed, and from a determination that all asserted claims, including those infringed, were invalid. The second precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court finding certain patent claims invalid, finding certain claims infringed, and entering a damage award in excess of $6 million. The third precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The fourth precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Each of the two nonprecedential opinions affirms a judgment—one of a district court in a patent case turning on patent eligibility, another of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued a notice addressing the fact that nonelectronic filing was not possible at the court due to the nondelivery of mail from Wednesday, March 20 to Friday, March 22. The court indicated that nonelectronic filings with deadlines arising during that time will be deemed as timely filed if they were received by the court by mail on Monday, March 25. Here is the text of the notice.