FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a response brief was filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a contract case; the government waived its right to respond in a patent case and a pro se case; a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in a patent case addressing inter partes review estoppel; and another reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal of the claim for lack of a cognizable property interest. The second comes in patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In it, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s denial of rehearing of two inter partes review proceedings. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied three petitions raising questions related to attorney-client privilege, anticipation, and the standard for establishing venue. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. In it, the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade’s determination that raised tariffs on steel imports were unauthorized under the Trade Expansion Act. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

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 Federal Circuit decision finding “[a] Texas federal court ‘clearly abused its discretion’ when declining to transfer a patent-infringement lawsuit against Google LLC”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit “vacat[ing] what it called an ‘extraordinarily high’ legal-fee award of $185 million”; and
• a third article about how a “Virginia federal judge issued a bench trial ruling Monday that ImmunoGen is not entitled to a patent on a cancer treatment . . . after the Federal Circuit vacated the court’s previous decision and ordered a trial.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s decision to dismiss a complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Here is an introduction to the opinion.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene eleven panels to consider 48 cases this week and on Tuesday of next week. Of these 48 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, three cases attracted amicus briefs. Two are appeals of judgments of patent ineligibility, and one is an appeal of an order to request the Food and Drug Administration to remove (or “delist”) a patent from the FDA’s so-called Orange Book. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

Three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Bard’s claims are directed to patent-ineligible printed matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, moreover, lack an inventive concept. With respect to the cross-appeal, the court will similarly consider whether MedComp’s claims are ineligible. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Schall filed a dissenting opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions.