FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed in two related cases. Both petitions raise questions related to the law governing motions to transfer venue. The Federal Circuit also denied three petitions for en banc hearing raising questions concerning the identification of real parties in interest in inter partes review proceedings, estoppel based on inter partes review, and the test for design patent infringement. Here are the details.

As we reported yesterday, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in October attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. In this patent case, REGENXBIO Inc. and the Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania appeal a district court’s grant of summary judgment of ineligibility. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a case involving allegations of patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement. One of the orders transfers an appeal; one remands a case; and three are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the orders transferring and remanding cases, along with links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article commenting on “the Supreme Court’s next move” in President Trump’s tariff case;
• an article suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “confirms that Trump has alternate paths forward, should the Supreme Court strike down his emergency duties on most of global commerce”;
• an article suggesting a “dramatic change in how inter partes reviews are handled . . . has drawn sharp criticism from law professors and technology companies, setting up a high stakes battle at the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article highlighting how some attorneys are looking to John Squires, the newly confirmed director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “to provide clear rules and consistent practices, saying the current requirements keep changing.”

Four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in October attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc. In this patent case, Paul and David Arlton seek reversal of a district court’s summary judgment ruling “that Plaintiffs’ claim for patent infringement is barred by [28 U.S.C.] § 1498,” as well as reversal of a denial of their motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and six nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. One of the orders is a denial of a petition for writ of mandamus, one remands a case pursuant to an agreement between the parties, one transfers an appeal, and three are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and orders other than the dismissals, along with links to the dismissals.

Here is an 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 a new opinion in a patent infringement case, a recent oral argument in a case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a new response and reply brief filed in a patent case, and two new patent cases that attracted amicus briefs. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders. All of today’s orders also dismiss appeals. Here are links to the orders.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article detailing how Judge Newman “asked the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider her constitutional challenge to the law her colleagues used to suspend her from hearing new cases”;
• a blog post reflecting on how former Federal Circuit Judge O’Malley recently “offered insights into . . . the evolving patent law”; and
• a blog post suggesting the Federal Circuit took “a different analytical path” in a recent decision “focusing on the claim limitation ‘clinically proven effective.’”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case. The other comes in an appeal from the Court of International Trade. As for the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case, and the other comes in a pro se case. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus in a pro se case, while the other four are dismissals of appeals. Here are introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition as well as links to the dismissals.