FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the court received the appellee’s supplemental brief. As for patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to the ability to revise infringement contentions during litigation and denied two petitions raising questions related respectively to vacatur of a preliminary injunction and claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the two precedential opinions, the court affirmed a judgment appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and reversed a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In the two nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit affirmed an arbitrator’s judgment and affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• a blog post about the oral argument in the Supreme Court case Amgen v. Sanofi;
• an article about “Centripetal Networks LLC urg[ing] the Federal Circuit to stop a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal’s validity review of a patent that was part of a wiped-out $1.9 billion verdict against Cisco Systems Inc.”; and
• another article about “the U.S. Supreme Court quickly pass[ing] on the opportunity to look at the Federal Circuit’s use of one-sentence Rule 36 rulings.”

Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions and a nonprecedential order. In the first opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the second opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington. Notably, Judge Clevenger dissented. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene twelve panels to consider 52 cases this week. Of these 52 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 35. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. Of the argued cases, five cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these five cases.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. In the first precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the second precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the International Trade Commission. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas in a patent case with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed another judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Again, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jenkins v. United States, a takings case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Jenkins was not entitled to compensation for the loss of his vehicles seized during a criminal investigation. This is our argument preview.

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

• an article about a Supreme Court petition asking the Court “to weigh whether former Commissioner of Patents . . . had the power to reject a request for director review”;
• another article about another petition filed with the Supreme Court asking it “to review a Federal Circuit decision affirming the partial invalidation of a footwear stitching patent challenged by rival Adidas AG”; and
• a blog post commenting on “AI tools creating inventive output.”

One of the five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief is Dixon v. United States, a tax case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss Dixon’s “assessed additional income tax claim” for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and in the alternative for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is City of WIlmington, Delaware v. United States, a contract case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that 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 preview.