FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion dismissing an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing a petition for lack of jurisdiction and an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also released another nonprecedential order granting a motion to dismiss.

A second case being argued in January at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Apple Inc. v. Vidal. This case concerns an allegation that a district court erred in finding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing a case for lack of a timely notice of appeal, a nonprecedential order reviewing a sanction of counsel, a nonprecedential order summarily affirming a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, and a summary affirmance.

Two cases being argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus brief. One of those cases is PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, a trade case. In it, PrimeSource Building Products claims the President did not act within his statutory authority by extending national security tariffs he had previously applied to steel articles to include derivatives of those articles. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of International Trade that the President exceeded his authority by issuing Proclamation 9980 outside the time limitations contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1). This is our argument preview.

Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the links to the dismissals.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Adams v. United States. In this case, the court is considering whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitles federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. 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:

• a blog post about some of the most common claim drafting issues “for biotech, chemical and pharma patent applications”;
• an article about how “VLSI Technology LLC plans to appeal an administrative ruling that wiped out 12 of its microchip patent claims”; and
• another article about “Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc. . . . [urging] the Federal Circuit to undo a federal injunction forcing it to delist a narcolepsy drug-related patent.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. Two dismiss appeals and one denies a motion to stay a mandate. Here is \ text from the order and a link to the dismissals.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following since the court scheduled an en banc hearing. The case presents the question of the relationship between the education benefits in the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and in particular whether veterans such as Mr. Rudisill with two or more periods of qualifying military service are entitled to 48 months of benefits. The court issued a majority opinion reversing the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which had held that veterans are entitled to 48 months of benefits when they have multiple periods of qualifying service. According to the Federal Circuit, these veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits. Two judges, however, issued dissenting opinions agreeing with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is our summary of the court’s opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that specific patent claims are unpatentable as obvious, the sale of a generic product would not induce infringement of the patents, and the sale of the generic product would not directly infringe other patents. Notably, Judge Newman dissented without opinion. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Georgia, and one denies a motion to dismiss and instead transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Ohio. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the orders.