FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. This week’s only update is that there is a new response to a petition raising questions related to the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, ten nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The opinion affirms a grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a pro se case. One of the orders summarily affirms a final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, while four of the orders transfer cases. Five of the orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion, summary affirmance, and transfers, as well as links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Restem appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which resulted in challenged claims being found not unpatentable. This is our argument recap.

The Federal Circuit did not release any orders or opinions on its website today given the Veterans Day holiday. Thanks to all veterans for their service to our country!

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the government. Judges Lourie, Stoll, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Yesterday afternoon the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, which were dismissals. This morning the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders and two Rule 36 judgments. Two of these orders transfer cases to district courts, while three are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the transfers as well as links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

Yesterday afternoon the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders, which were all dismissals. This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. The first opinion affirms a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims, while the second opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first order transfers a case to the District of Arizona, while the second order is another dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and transfer as well as links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on 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, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a patent case raising questions related to Judge Newman’s removal from her duties, Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the judicial exception to patentability for abstract ideas. The Court also received one new reply brief in support of a petition filed in another patent case raising a question related to standing. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and three Rule 36 judgments. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and a Rule 36 judgment. The first two nonprecedential opinions affirm decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the third vacates and remands a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.