FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case based on disqualification of the district court judge. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Court set a date for oral argument in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case raising questions about equitable tolling of a veterans benefits filing deadline. With respect to petition cases, two new petitions were filed in patent cases; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a veterans case; three amicus briefs were filed in another veterans case; and the Court denied two petitions, one in a patent case and one in a federal employment case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning attorney’s fees; a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of California; and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.  

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied two petitions for rehearing raising questions related to the Appointments Clause and the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review. The court also granted panel rehearing but denied as moot rehearing en banc in response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Revised Protocols for In-Person Argument. Notably, the revised protocols now allow counsel to bring up to two attendees into the courthouse. Here is the full text of the announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, granting a petition for panel rehearing, vacating the Federal Circuit’s prior decision, and reversing the district court’s judgment that claims were not invalid for violating the written description requirement. Notably, Judge Linn dissented. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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

• a blog post examining “whether, when it comes to questions about patent venue, the Federal Circuit is really in the pocket of big tech”;
• another blog post highlighting how, “[i]n a far cry from usual textualism,” the Supreme Court affirmed a Federal Circuit decision in a veterans case; and
• an article discussing an en banc petition that argues that “a recent split Federal Circuit panel decision gives the Patent Trial and Appeal Board the improper authority to overturn circuit court decisions.”

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today given the Juneteenth holiday.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case, denying a petition to set aside the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ denial of rulemaking. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in the second case, Judge Lourie dissented. Late yesterday the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

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 “[f]ewer than 20% of attorneys arguing in front of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2021 were women, according to Bloomberg Law data”;
• a blog post explaining how the Federal Circuit’s high grant rate for mandamus petitions “is driven almost entirely by mandamus petitions in patent infringement cases out of the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas that raise questions about transfer of venue for convenience reasons under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)”; and
• another article discussing how a virtual reality company “has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision upholding the invalidation of its four gaming patents under Alice, amplifying calls for the high court to clarify the two-part patent eligibility test.”