FedCircuitBlog

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, and here’s what you need to know. The court will convene just four panels to consider about 19 cases. Notably, none of this week’s cases attracted amicus briefs. Of the 19 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 16. Here is a list of this week’s cases.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

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

• an article noting how a “[f]ederal judge sitting atop mound of patent litigation loses perch with equitable-distribution order”;
• another article addressing how “Netflix [won] attorneys’ fees for California litigation at Federal Circuit”;
• a third article discussing how an engineer filed an amicus brief critiquing a Federal Circuit decision that would allegedly “let federal agencies ‘cut corners’ and render public accountability ‘superfluous.’”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a government contract case appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a takings case related to patents and a tax case. Here are the details.

This month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales USA, Inc., a patent case we have been watching because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, Thales appealed a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Thales sought to “prevent Philips from pursuing an . . . exclusion order against Thales” at the International Trade Commission based on a commitment by Philips to license its patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. In a relatively short precedential opinion, a Federal Circuit panel comprised of Chief Judge Moore and Judges Dyk and Chen affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court, which awarded attorneys’ fees with respect to the underlying California action but not with respect to related proceedings in Delaware and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part from the panel’s judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the government filed its en banc reply brief. The court also received a new petition in a case raising a question related to the written description requirement. Here are the details.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve 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 an opinion in a patent case addressing the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the International Trade Commission, a new patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and two oral argument recaps in a veterans case and a patent case concerning prosecution laches. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, Personalized Media Communications appeals a district court’s decision to overturn a jury verdict. While the district court applied the “equitable doctrine of prosecution latches,” PMC claims the district court committed legal error and abused its discretion in ruling that PMC engaged in an “egregious misuse” of the patent system. This is our argument recap.