FedCircuitBlog

Happy Leap Day! This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. The opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a Fifth Amendment takings claim.  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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in two pro se cases. Additionally, a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case and three amicus briefs were filed in a veterans case. Here are the details.

As we reported yesterday, five cases being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Frantzis v. McDonough. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of Veteran Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a Board hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses an appeal hinging on the interpretation of a patent license agreement. One of the nonprecedential orders addresses a petition for a writ of mandamus. The remaining four nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from the order addressing the petition, and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include three new petitions for rehearing filed in appeals in inter partes review proceedings decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

Five cases being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Celanese International Corporation v. International Trade Commission. In it, the Federal Circuit will review 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. This is our argument preview.

Yesterday, the Clerk’s Office released guidance to clarify the criteria for allowable and unallowable scheduling conflicts with oral argument sessions. The guidance includes a non-dispositive and non-exhaustive list of allowable and unallowable scheduling conflicts. The guidance aims to provide helpful information regarding acceptable scheduling conflicts. Here is the text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. The opinion addresses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims relating to adverse decisions rendered under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal in a patent case after a jury trial and bench trial in the Western District of Texas. The order transfers a case to a district court. Here is the introduction to the opinion and selected text from the order.

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

• an article discussing how a “consortium of patent lawyers and small startups are sounding the alarm at the Federal Circuit over a ruling last year”; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit ruling that “Intel failed to show that Koniklijke Philips NV’s patent . . . was obvious, and thus invalid, based on several previously published inventions.”