FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the ability of a Federal Circuit panel to nullify or render advisory an earlier judgment of the court. The court also received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in a case raising questions related to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the grounds for inter partes review. Finally, the court denied a petition in a case raising questions related to the court’s grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus to order transfer of a case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

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 many patent lawyers “interviewed . . . by The Texas Lawbook said that it is a mistake and miscarriage of justice to strip patent cases away from Judge Albright”;
• a blog post addressing how the “prior art history [of diagnostic patents] is irreconcilable with” a Federal Circuit panel’s conclusion that the patents are ineligible; and
• another article explaining how U.S. Senator “Tillis [plans] to introduce 101 reform legislation within weeks.”

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, and here’s what you need to know. The court will convene just four panels to consider about 19 cases. Notably, none of this week’s cases attracted amicus briefs. Of the 19 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 16. Here is a list of this week’s cases.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning 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 noting how a “[f]ederal judge sitting atop mound of patent litigation loses perch with equitable-distribution order”;
• another article addressing how “Netflix [won] attorneys’ fees for California litigation at Federal Circuit”;
• a third article discussing how an engineer filed an amicus brief critiquing a Federal Circuit decision that would allegedly “let federal agencies ‘cut corners’ and render public accountability ‘superfluous.’”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a government contract case appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a takings case related to patents and a tax case. Here are the details.

This month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales USA, Inc., a patent case we have been watching because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, Thales appealed a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Thales sought to “prevent Philips from pursuing an . . . exclusion order against Thales” at the International Trade Commission based on a commitment by Philips to license its patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. In a relatively short precedential opinion, a Federal Circuit panel comprised of Chief Judge Moore and Judges Dyk and Chen affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction. This is our opinion summary.