FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case and the second nonprecedential opinion appeals a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC. In it, Restem appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding that found challenged claims not unpatentable. This is our argument preview.

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 one new opinion in a case raising a question related to se advertising counterclaims under the Lanham Act; two new cases, one a takings case and another a patent case; and new briefing in a case raising questions related to whether a district court erred in denying a motion to intervene and to unseal court records. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case. Here is the introduction to that opinion.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced that security fencing will be installed around the National Courts Building and surrounding area but that access to the court will still be available. Here is the full text of the announcement.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents were not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Hughes heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

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

• an announcement reporting on the creation of a new “IP-Focused American Inn of Court named after Judge Kara F. Stoll”;
• an article describing a recent event where “[j]udges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shared insights into how they decide cases and gave career advice to students after a special session of live oral arguments at UC Law San Francisco”; and
• an article suggesting that the USPTO’s current Patent Term Adjustment rules are “subject to shifting judicial precedent and their strict application creates ‘traps’ which can subvert congressional intent.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. Two of the precedential opinions come in patent cases. Notably, in one of these two cases Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part. The third precedential opinion affirms the dismissal of an appeal by the Merit Systems Protection Board for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an employment case, and the nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in Bufkin v. McDonough. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed in two patent cases and a veterans case, two new briefs in opposition were filed in patent cases, and one new amicus brief was filed in a veterans case. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case. In it, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1),” which directs that court to “take due account” of the application of that rule. This is our argument recap.