FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing last week’s Senate markup hearing where lawmakers announced that they plan to “delay consideration of both the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (PREVAIL Act)”;
• an article reporting how U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal announced that “she will leave the office in mid-December ahead of the incoming administration of Republican President-Elect Donald Trump”;
• a blog post highlighting an upcoming en banc review by the Federal Circuit that will “address fundamental questions about the reliability standards for expert damages testimony in patent cases”; and
• an article examining the law surrounding patent marking after a recent Federal Circuit decision “seemingly revived a private actor’s right to bring a cause of action for false marking via the unfair competition and false advertising provisions of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied an application for disability retirement benefits. The first order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Eastern District of Texas to vacate an order denying transfer and to transfer the case. The last two orders were both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first order, as well as links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on 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, three new petitions were filed, two in patent cases and one in a pro se case. In the first patent case, the petition raises a question related to summary affirmances of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the second patent case, the question relates to personal jurisdiction. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted seven amicus briefs. In it, Teva challenges a district court’s injunction requiring it to delist five patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. Judges Prost, Taranto, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. The first opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both orders were dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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 discussing how the “Senate Judiciary Committee may consider two important patent laws this week: the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act and the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)”; and
• an article highlighting a petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court “presenting the question of whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) habit of issuing one-word affirmances under Rule 36(a) is prohibited under 35 U.S.C. § 144.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The first two opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The third opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fourth opinion comes in an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, one transfers a case, and one is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders, as well as links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. This week’s only update is that there is a new response to a petition raising questions related to the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, ten nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The opinion affirms a grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a pro se case. One of the orders summarily affirms a final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, while four of the orders transfer cases. Five of the orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion, summary affirmance, and transfers, as well as links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Restem appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which resulted in challenged claims being found not unpatentable. This is our argument recap.