FedCircuitBlog

Last Wednesday, the court heard oral argument in Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., an appeal by Zaxcom from an adverse decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding initiated by Lectrosonics. We have been following the case because it attracted two amicus briefs, one from retired Federal Circuit Judge Paul R. Michel and one from U.S. Inventor, Inc. On appeal, Zaxcom argues the PTAB incorrectly construed certain claims, incorrectly found certain claim elements in the prior art, and erred in its analysis of secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Lectrosonics cross-appeals, arguing the Board incorrectly found substitute claims to be patentable. Judges Lourie, Schall, Taranto heard Wednesday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and addresses issues related to the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of New York and addresses issues related to eligible subject matter. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Guest Post by J. Jonas Anderson

Patent litigation is highly concentrated before a handful of district court judges. Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas is the latest high profile “patent judge,” receiving over 20% of the patent cases nationwide in 2020 and on track to surpass that figure in 2021.1 But, he is not the first judge to have such a heavy patent caseload: Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas received northward of 40% of all U.S. patent cases as recently as 2016;2 and a number of judges in the district of Delaware consistently receive a very large number of patent cases.3 While all district court judges are generalists, various judges, including Judge Albright and Judge Gilstrap have used procedural mechanisms and their courts’ assignment practices to become de facto specialists.4 Judge Albright now receives more patent cases per year (he’s on track for 926 this year) than the amount of patent appeals heard by the entire Federal Circuit (around 835 appeals).5 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion addresses issues related to estoppel as a result of inter partes review. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in a patent and employment case, and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for en banc rehearing in a patent case. Notably, with respect to the order, Chief Judge Moore wrote a concurring opinion joined by Judges Newman, O’Malley, Taranto, and Chen, while Judge Prost wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Judges Dyk and Reyna. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders denying and dismissing petitions for writs of mandamus and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

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 far “the scope of [inter partes review] estoppel expands”;
• another blog post commenting on “[t]he Federal Circuit’s analysis of comparable licenses” for damages purposes in patent cases; and
• an article explaining “mandamus and the battle over venue in modern America.”

Last Thursday the Federal Circuit granted en banc review and vacated a prior panel decision in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. According to last week’s order, the en banc court will consider the question of a veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and in particular what the correct entitlement period is when considering both bills and multiple qualifying periods of service. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. The first opinion addresses issues related to the on-sale bar for a design patent. The second opinion addresses a district court’s finding after a bench trial that claims were invalid for failing to meet the non-obviousness requirement. Notably, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion in this second case. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in an employment case and a veterans disability case. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions have been filed, both in patent cases. In addition, five amicus briefs were submitted in a case presenting a challenge to the Chevron doctrine. Also, the government waived its right right to respond in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case and concerns a district court’s refusal to seal certain documents. Notably, Judge Mayer wrote an opinion dissenting from the majority’s decision to vacate and remand the case. The second comes in a government contract case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in employment and veterans cases. Finally, the court released a precedential order transferring an employment case to the District of Maryland. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Guest Post by Jason Rantanen

In its 2021 Arthrex decision, the Supreme Court rewrote the procedural process that Congress created for reviewing decisions by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges.1 Rather than directly appealing to the Federal Circuit (or filing an action in the Eastern District of Virginia), a party that is dissatisfied with the outcome at the PTAB can petition the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the Director) for rehearing.2 This post summarizes some of my thoughts on the effects of Arthrex on PTAB decision-making, especially when PTAB decisions are appealed to the Federal Circuit. Overall, I’m skeptical that Arthrex presents a great opportunity for the Director to engage in patent policymaking. Given the way that United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) review is structured, there’s relatively little room for the Director to engage in policy-shaping through review of PTAB decisions. There are many other ways in which the Director can influence patent policy, and these are likely to be more promising paths than exercising direct oversight over individual PTAB decisions.