FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. One of the nonprecedential orders comes in a patent case and denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct a district court to vacate its order denying transfer and to transfer the action. Two of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first order, as well as links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight two new response briefs, one in a case raising questions related to whether a district court erred in denying a motion to intervene and to unseal court records and another in a patent case involving a challenge to a district court’s injunction requiring the delisting of patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book; two new reply briefs, one in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility, claim construction, and infringement and another in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility; and five new amicus briefs in the patent case challenging the delisting of patents from the Orange Book. Here are the details.

There are three cases that will be argued in October at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents are not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. Here is the link 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 discussing Judge Newman’s suspension and a “report by Dr. Aaron G. Filler released Tuesday by Newman’s lawyers with the New Civil Liberties Alliance”;
• an article addressing the current state of software patent eligibility “since the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l“; and
• a blog post highlighting the Federal Circuit’s recent order granting a petition for en banc rehearing “focusing on the admissibility of expert testimony regarding patent damages.”

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioners’ reply brief was filed in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case concerning the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a veterans case, and new waivers of the right to respond were filed in the same patent case and in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential order and one nonprecedential opinion. Notably, the precedential order grants a petition for rehearing en banc in a patent case. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision by the Middle District of Georgia to grant a motion to dismiss in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the order and opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit granted a petition for en banc rehearing filed by Google in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, a patent case appealed after a jury trial in the Western District of Texas. Google asked the court to consider whether the district court erred in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and devoid of connection to the patent’s incremental improvement to the art.” Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order. The order is a dismissal, which we link here.