FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday and today, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinion, the court lifted an injunction and affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In the two nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit reversed judgments in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, in the two nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit dismissed cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Adopted Amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice. In it, the court amends 18 Federal Circuit Rules of Practice. The new amendments will take effect on March 1, 2023. Here is the full text of the announcement and a summary of the amendments.

The morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and a nonprecedential order. In the first opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of unpatentability in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  In the second opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Merit System Protection Board.  In the third opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. The nonprecedential order issued by the Federal Circuit granted a motion to withdraw a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinions and order.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this patent case, Personalized Media Communications challenged a district court’s decision to overturn a jury verdict based on the equitable doctrine of prosecution latches. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Chen and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling.

On February 10, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a district court that Bard’s patent claims are directed to patent-ineligible printed matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, moreover, lack an inventive concept. With respect to the cross-appeal, the court will similarly consider whether MedComp’s patent claims are ineligible. The panel hearing the oral argument included Judges Chen, Wallach, and Hughes. This is our argument recap.

This morning and late yesterday the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three orders dismissing appeals. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from Southern District of Texas that was dismissed for failure to state a claim. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court recently granted the motion of the Solicitor General leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the pending patent case addressing the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a pro se case and another in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a trade case; one amicus brief was filed in a trademark case and three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case (including, interestingly, an amicus brief on behalf of retired federal appellate judges); and the Court denied six petitions in various patent, veterans, and pro se cases. Here are the details. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions.  In the first, the court affirmed a military case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the second, the Federal Circuit dismissed 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. The en banc court issued a long-awaited opinion last week in an employment case addressing the question of whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to claim construction and denied a petition in a case raising a question related to the terms of a protective order. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided Adams v. United States, an employment case we have been following since the court scheduled an en banc hearing. The case presents the question of the relationship between COVID-19 and Hazardous Duty Pay (HDP) and Environmental Differential Pay (EDP) regulations, and in particular whether prison guards who come into contact with COVID-19 through either human to human contact or human contaminated mediums are entitled to EDP or HDP. Last week, the court issued a majority opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claims, which held that OPM’s regulations do not provide for HDP and EDP for working with or in proximity to individuals infected with COVID-19. According to the Federal Circuit, these veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits. Two judges dissented, however, arguing for reversal. Here is our summary of these opinions.