FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, five nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in a government contract dispute and vacates a judgment and an injunction, affirms a sanctions order, and remands for further proceedings. Three of the nonprecedential orders deny petitions seeking orders to transfer or not transfer cases, while one remands an appeal with instructions that a district court consider a motion to vacate and the last order was a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions concerning public disclosures under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and issue preclusion. The court also denied two petitions. One raised a question related to the relationship of claim construction and unpatentability arguments in inter partes review proceedings. The other raised questions related to means-plus-function claims and patent eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced the court has updated its calendar of sessions for October 2024 through September 2025. Notably, the court will hear arguments six days in each of the sessions held in December through May. The court also released its calendar of sessions for October 2025 through September 2026, and none of these months include more than five days for oral arguments. Here is the text of today’s announcement with a link to the calendars.

This morning the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 judgment. The first opinion affirms a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The second and third opinions affirm dismissals by the Court of Federal Claims. The last two opinions affirm decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• an article reporting on how the Federal Circuit extended the suspension of 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for another year, citing “serious concerns about Judge Newman’s cognitive state” and her refusal to comply with the ongoing fitness investigation;
• a blog post highlighting the possible impact of the bipartisan Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, introduced in Congress this term, on U.S. patent law; and
• an article discussing the evolving nature of standing in patent infringement cases in light of a recent Federal Court decision.

Friday the Federal Circuit announced that it released new materials related to its investigation of Judge Newman. The materials include an order unanimously adopting a report and recommendation of the Special Committee of the Federal Circuit Judicial Council. Most notably, the order states that “Judge Newman shall not be permitted to hear or participate in any cases, at the panel or en banc level, for a period of one year beginning with the issuance of this Order, subject to consideration of renewal if Judge Newman’s refusal to cooperate continues after that time and to consideration of modification or rescission if justified by an end of the refusal to cooperate.” Here is the full text of Friday’s announcement with links to the released material.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion reverses a grant of summary judgment in a patent infringement case and remands the case for further proceedings. The first nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal of a decision from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinion vacates a judgment of non-infringement, reverses an exclusion of testimony, and remands a patent case for further proceedings. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case in which a veteran requested a retroactive promotion. The second nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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:

• an article discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing expert testimony;
• an article addressing another recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the application of Supreme Court precedent on patent eligibility; and
• an article reporting on a Federal Circuit judge’s skepticism that a lower court incorrectly calculated damages in a copyright case.

In early August the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entertainment, a trademark case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. As explained by the appellants, “[i]n a two-to-one split decision, the Board held registrable a mark prominently incorporating without permission the certification mark COGNAC, holding that the mark . . . , if used for hip-hop music and production services, was not likely to cause confusion or dilution.” The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Clevenger and Hughes. This is our opinion summary.