FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. It addresses an appeal from a final determination from the International Trade Commission in a patent matter. 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:

• an article highlighting how “Apple cannot sell two flagship Apple Watch models in the U.S. . . . after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the company can no longer sell Series 9 and Ultra 2 Apple Watches with the blood oxygen feature”;
• an article about “an amicus brief filed Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” where a “federal judge in Delaware defended his authority to compel live testimony”; and
• an article discussing an “attorney representing Amazon at the Federal Circuit test[ing] the patience of U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Chen on Friday by speaking over another judge and refusing to answer direct questions.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims unpatentable and denying a revised motion to amend claims. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal as moot. 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, an opening merits brief was submitted in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in one patent case and two pro se cases, a reply brief was filed in a patent case, and the Court denied certiorari in a veterans case. Here are the details.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit released two notices. One announced the court would be closed yesterday due to inclement weather, while the other announced the court would open today on time. Here is the text of the notices.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five Rule 36 summary affirmances. The opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the summary affirmances.

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

• an article discussing skepticism from Federal Circuit judges over “arguments that the former CEO of Trading Technologies International is entitled to nearly $1 billion damages because IBG LLC infringed the company’s dynamic trading display patents”;
• an article about the Supreme Court’s denial of “a petition asking the High Court to clarify patent eligibility jurisprudence under Section 101 since its 2014 ruling in Alice“; and
• a similar blog post discussing the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in three patent cases and commenting that this “means that the court is unlikely to hear a patent case this term.”

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. One denies both a petition and a motion in an ongoing patent infringement action; another dismisses an appeal. Here is selected text from the denial order and a link to the dismissal.

The Federal Circuit sends us into the weekend with the release of four nonprecedential opinions. One opinion addresses an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims in which a motion for extension to file a notice of appeal was denied. Another opinion addresses an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding two claims unpatentable as obvious. Finally, two opinions, sharing the same named parties, address appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable as obvious. Here are the introductions to the opinions.