FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of International Trade that “the statutory authority to ‘modify’ a safeguard is limited to trade-liberalizing changes” and that Proclamation 10101 exceeded the President’s authority. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark joined by Judges Lourie and Taranto, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that the “the President’s view that a ‘modification’ may include a change in a trade-restricting direction, and is not limited to trade-liberalizing changes, is not unreasonable.” This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses an appeal in a patent case, disputing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s claim construction and ultimate decision declaring certain claims unpatentable. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

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

• an article discussing how the “Federal Circuit recently weighed in on the application of the [Administrative Procedure Act] in the context of two different [inter partes review proceedings;” and
• an article about a Supreme Court petition asking the Court “to reverse a ruling that made its patents ineligible for protection because they are too abstract.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that claims had not been shown to be unpatentable. One nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal asking whether a district court erred in its claim construction in a patent case. The majority found that the district court did not err, while Judge Stark dissented. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a lower court’s decision to dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, the 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 arguments last week in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s practice of reversing agency decisions and patent eligibility. Two waivers of right to respond were filed, one in the patent case raising the question about reversing agency decisions and one in a pro se case. A brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the ability to review determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. An amicus brief was filed in a veterans case. And, finally, the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion reviews a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which dismissed an opposition to the registration of a character mark and design mark. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions for rehearing in patent cases presenting questions related to secondary considerations of non-obviousness and inconsistency between Board and district court claim constructions, along with a denial of a petition in another patent case presenting a question related to eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. Both opinions address jurisdictional issues, with one affirming a Merit Systems Protection Board dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and another dismissing an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The order grants a motion to withdraw a petition. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the withdrawal and summary affirmances.

Earlier this year the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Sun’s patent claims in an inter partes review proceeding for failure to meet the non-obviousness requirement. In an opinion by Judge Stark, joined by Judges Linn and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s judgment. In particular, the court held that the Board had “substantial evidence to conclude that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation” of success in modifying compounds as directed in Sun’s patent claims.

This morning, the Federal Circuit provided notice on its website of increased fees taking effect on December 1. The court says the new fees reflect inflationary increases to various miscellaneous court fees and additional increases to local fees. Here is the full text of the announcement.