FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article arguing the “full Federal Circuit should reject an ill-conceived request by major players in the repair parts industry” after yesterday’s arguments in a design patent case; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit agreed “with a lower court’s conclusion that claims in an Eolas Technologies Inc. 1994 web patent weren’t actually valid, handing a win to Google, Amazon and Walmart.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and six nonprecedential orders. The first opinion addresses a challenge to a district court’s construction of certain claim terms in a patent case. The second dismisses for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Two orders transfer appeals (one to a district court and another to an appellate court), one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, two dismiss appeals, and one grants a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer and denial orders, and links to the dismissals and summary affirmance.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 12 panels to consider 57 cases. Of these 57 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 43. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal because the appellant failed to prove he was an “employee” within the meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It addresses an appeal from a district court’s judgment in a patent case. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for review. Here is the introduction to the opinion and link to the dismissal.

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

• an article discussing a “rare Federal Circuit en banc patent case” set for oral argument next week that “threatens” the current test for obviousness with respect to design patents; and
• an article indicating “the Federal Circuit could make the [International Trade Commission] a more appealing forum.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. That opinion affirms a district court’s summary judgment in a patent case, holding asserted claims invalid for ineligible subject matter. 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 Court set a date for oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in two patent cases and waivers of right to respond were filed in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court in a patent case and affirms the denial of a preliminary injunction. The other dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include an upcoming oral argument in the only pending en banc case–a design patent case–and a new petition for rehearing in another patent case presenting a question regarding the printed matter doctrine. The court also denied two petitions in other patent cases. Here are the details.