FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dixon v. United States, a tax case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal circuit reviewed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Dixon’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Clevenger and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. This is our opinion summary.

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

• an article commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi concerning patent law’s enablement requirement;
• an article highlighting the Biden administration urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in Apple v. Caltech, a case presenting a question about inter partes review estoppel;
• a post noting the effects of the Federal Circuit’s holding addressing inducement of infringement by so-called skinny labels in Teva v. GlaxoSmithKline after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case; and
• an article arguing the recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals addressing a limit on what qualifies as analogous prior art “adds to [the] toolbox for patentee prosecution and litigation success.”

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

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case involving analysis of pre-AIA first-to-invent provisions. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, along with a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition presenting questions related to patent reissue and the written description requirement; two new invitations for response to petitions presenting questions related to patent reissue, the written description requirement, and appellate jurisdiction; and denials of two petitions presenting questions related to the non-obviousness requirement and anticipation. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case dealing with attorney fees and non-taxable costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 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 and a blog post commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi; and
• two articles providing updates on the ongoing proceedings concerning Judge Newman’s competency to serve as a judge on the Federal Circuit.

Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contract case, a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the orders.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve 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 an opinion in a tax case, an opinion in a government contract case, a patent case and a pro se employment case with new briefing, and an oral argument recap in a case concerning the Clean Water Act. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit heard oral argument last month in City of Wilmington v. United States, a Clean Water Act case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the City of Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323. This is our argument recap.