FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article explaining how “St Jude Medical will have to defend claims that its catheters infringe[d] a company’s revived patent”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “affirm[ed] — on a procedural technicality — a precedential decision of a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that granted a motion to amend claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding”; and
• yet another article assessing how “Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.‘s best hope for escaping a $42 million patent infringement verdict won by Seagen Inc. may lie in its separate administrative challenge to Seagen’s patent.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a death benefits case appealed from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The second comes in two consolidated patent cases appealed from the District of Delaware. The court also released four nonprecedential orders. Two of the orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus against, respectively, the Court of Federal Claims and Eastern District of Texas. The third order grants a voluntary dismissal, and the fourth transfers a case to the Second Circuit. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions. The first comes in a government contract case appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The other three come in trade cases appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a trade case and the other in a patent case. Finally, the court released a nonprecedential order, a Rule 36 judgment, and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner filed his reply merits brief in George v. McDonough, a case concerning the scope of clear and unmistakable error in the context of review of denials of veterans’ claims for benefits. As to cases with pending petitions, the government filed a brief in opposition in a veterans case challenging the Federal Circuit’s application of the Chevron doctrine. Also, following a Supreme Court request last fall, the government finally submitted the view of the United States in a patent case raising questions related to preclusion. The Court also denied three petitions: one in a government contracts case and two in patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions raising questions related to estoppel arising from inter partes review, the legal standard for overruling prior precedential decisions, claim construction, and the standard for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to evaluate substitute claims and a motion to amend claims. The court also invited responses to four petitions raising questions related to the presumption of nexus in a non-obviousness analysis; the process and standard for determining indefiniteness; and choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the assignment of patents and standing. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The third comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Nevada. 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 a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post discussing how “[c]ourts continue to struggle with their use of evidence for claim construction” in patent cases;
• an article detailing how the “Senate’s April 5 confirmation of Winston & Strawn partner Kathi Vidal means the agency can finally make movement on pressing policy issues that have been in limbo while the leadership post remained vacant for more than a year”; and
• another article analyzing how the the Federal Circuit recently “criticized, but left intact, limits on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can devise reasons to reject requests to amend patents.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Minnesota addressing numerous issues concerning validity and infringement. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential opinions in patent, tax, and employment cases. Notably, in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion. Finally, the court issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

In March, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Wolfe v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs asked the Federal Circuit to reverse the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which “granted a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Wolfe on behalf of a class of claimants to invalidate 38 C.F.R. § 17.1005(a)(5) and require [the Department of Veterans Affairs] to readjudicate and grant claims for reimbursement of coinsurance and deductibles.” In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Reyna and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is our opinion summary.