FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The lone nonprecedential opinion came in a government contract case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. All five nonprecedential orders dismissed appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion 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:

• a piece covering how “Howard Lutnick, President Donald Trump’s nominee for commerce secretary, labeled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s patent application backlog ‘unacceptable’ and committed to end what he called China’s abuse of the agency” in his Senate confirmation hearing;
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit recently held that the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has jurisdiction over expired patents brought before it in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• an news alert discussing how the New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed an amicus brief claiming that “[t]he Federal Circuit must either permit the unlawfully suspended Judge Pauline Newman to participate in consideration of EcoFactor v. Google, or else vacate the order granting en banc rehearing in this case”; and
• an article analyzing the “top 5 most important bid protest decisions of 2024.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and five nonprecedential orders. Both of the nonprecedential opinions came in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, both relate to patents being asserted by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in separate litigation. Of the nonprecedential orders, one addresses a notice of non-participation in an appeal in a patent case and the other four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order addressing the notice of non-participation in an appeal, as well as links to the dismissals.

As we’ve been mentioning, next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. On Wednesday, a panel will consider Farrington v. Department of Transportation, a case that attracted one amicus brief. In this case, Farrington challenges the Merit Systems Protection Board’s determination that she was not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. This is our argument preview.

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. While no new petitions were filed, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari in a veterans case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

As we highlighted yesterday, three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and seven nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Northern District of West Virginia. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in patent cases, and one comes in a government contract case. Of the nonprecedential orders released today, three address notices of non-participation in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and among other things these orders ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office whether it will intervene in the appeals to defend the PTAB’s decisions. Two of the other nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmance, while two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders addressing the notices of non-participation in appeals, as well as links to the grants of summary affirmance and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. An opening brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. Three new amicus briefs have also been filed in the other pending en banc case regarding a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. Additionally, a new petition was filed in a Hatch-Waxman case raising a question regarding listing of patents in the Orange Book. Finally, the court denied an en banc petition raising a question concerning the lifting of an administrative injunction. Here are the highlights.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States, a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a dismissal of a complaint seeking damages based on alleged government-caused delays in a contractor’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential opinions. The lone nonprecedential opinion was in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one came in a trademark case, one came in a patent case, and the final one came in a government contract case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.