FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article highlighting how the Supreme Court yesterday denied Apple’s petition for writ of certiorari in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.;
• another article discussing how “two cases signal that the Federal Circuit and district courts are moving toward explicitly recognizing that parties to a mandatory arbitration clause can bargain away the right to file for inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”; and
• a blog post addressing how a flip in a recent Federal Circuit decision “appears to be the consequence of a change in panel composition.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders. One summarily affirms; one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and two grant joint motions to voluntarily dismiss. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the dismissals.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today 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 discussing how “[a]n unusual Federal Circuit decision has given generic drugmakers a new way to successfully challenge pharmaceutical patents with specific types of claims”;
• another article explaining how “the broader context of [Thaler v. Vidal] can provide strategic guidance for future AI litigation matters”; and
• a third article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a “$2.75 [billion] damages award because [the] judge’s wife owned stock.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case based on disqualification of the district court judge. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Court set a date for oral argument in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case raising questions about equitable tolling of a veterans benefits filing deadline. With respect to petition cases, two new petitions were filed in patent cases; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a veterans case; three amicus briefs were filed in another veterans case; and the Court denied two petitions, one in a patent case and one in a federal employment case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning attorney’s fees; a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of California; and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.  

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied two petitions for rehearing raising questions related to the Appointments Clause and the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review. The court also granted panel rehearing but denied as moot rehearing en banc in response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Revised Protocols for In-Person Argument. Notably, the revised protocols now allow counsel to bring up to two attendees into the courthouse. Here is the full text of the announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, granting a petition for panel rehearing, vacating the Federal Circuit’s prior decision, and reversing the district court’s judgment that claims were not invalid for violating the written description requirement. Notably, Judge Linn dissented. Here is the introduction to the opinion.