FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, an important patent eligibility case decided by the Federal Circuit in 2019. In this case, the petitioner requested the Supreme Court grant review to reconsider the appropriate standard for determining patent eligibility and to determine whether eligibility is a question of law or fact. The Solicitor General previously recommended the Court grant review to reconsider the first question presented, addressing the appropriate standard for determining eligibility. But today the Court denied the petition.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petition cases, six waivers of right to respond were submitted; two briefs in opposition were filed, one in an Equal Access to Justice Act case and one in a patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in three cases, two in patent cases and one in an employment case. Here are the details.

One of Justice Breyer’s last acts as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court might be voting to deny a petition for a writ of certiorari in an important patent eligibility case decided by the Federal Circuit. The case, American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., tests the precedential value and limits of the test Justice Breyer himself created for patent eligibility ten years go in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Today, the Supreme Court held its last conference of the current term; American Axle was on the list for consideration at today’s conference; and Justice Breyer notified President Biden that his retirement would be effective as of tomorrow at noon eastern.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, vacating the Veterans Court’s decision and remanding the case. Notably, Judge Bryson wrote a dissent disagreeing with the majority’s analysis of causation. The second opinion comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, reversing the Board’s decision. Notably, in the second case, Judge Reyna wrote a concurring opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court sua sponte granted en banc consideration in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In another pending en banc veterans case, the veteran filed his en banc response brief, and the Federal Circuit scheduled the case for oral argument in October. The court also received a new petition raising questions related to the court’s grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus to order transfer of a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a case appealed from the Western District of Wisconsin and reverses a contempt finding based on an alleged violation of protective order. Notably, in the second case, Judge Reyna filed a dissent. The Federal Circuit also released a precedential order sua sponte granting en banc consideration to a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade and three nonprecedential orders denying petitions for a writ of mandamus, denying a petition for a writ of control, and granting a motion for a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

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

• an article highlighting how the Supreme Court yesterday denied Apple’s petition for writ of certiorari in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.;
• another article discussing how “two cases signal that the Federal Circuit and district courts are moving toward explicitly recognizing that parties to a mandatory arbitration clause can bargain away the right to file for inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”; and
• a blog post addressing how a flip in a recent Federal Circuit decision “appears to be the consequence of a change in panel composition.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders. One summarily affirms; one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and two grant joint motions to voluntarily dismiss. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the dismissals.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today 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 discussing how “[a]n unusual Federal Circuit decision has given generic drugmakers a new way to successfully challenge pharmaceutical patents with specific types of claims”;
• another article explaining how “the broader context of [Thaler v. Vidal] can provide strategic guidance for future AI litigation matters”; and
• a third article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a “$2.75 [billion] damages award because [the] judge’s wife owned stock.”