FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The opinion, decided partially en banc, addresses evidentiary standards applicable in veterans’ cases. Judges Reyna, Newman, and O’Malley filed a separate opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part with respect to the part of the opinion decided by the en banc court. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a nonprecedential order related to the opinion decided in part by the en banc court as well as two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order 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 detailing how “[a] South Korean nutritional supplement company correctly lost its BF-7 trademark registration”;
• another article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit has refused to revive Polycom Inc.’s attempt to undo part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision”;
• a blog post assessing how “‘[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction’”; and
• yet another article discussing how the Federal Circuit has recently provided “an important new data point in the evolving timeliness rules for bid protests filed with the Court of Federal Claims.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions. The first two opinions come in cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and concern decisions regarding obviousness. The third opinion comes in a case appealed from the District of Minnesota and concerns a grant of summary judgment of no induced infringement. The final opinion comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief and the court scheduled the oral argument to occur in February. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. As for petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received two new petitions raising questions relating to the standard for enhanced damages and the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. The court also received responses to two petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to the interpretation of a forum selection clause, a writ of mandamus, and comparable licenses and royalty calculations, and another petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Northern District of Alabama concerning a motion to transfer a Fair Labor Standards Act claim to the Court of Federal Claims. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board concerning the jurisdiction of the Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion reviewing an order transferring an Equal Pay Act claim from the Eastern District of Louisiana to the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the second comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. 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:

• a blog post assessing whether Section 1052(c) of the Lanham Act is “a “First Amendment-free zone”;
• an article analyzing Cellspin Soft’s challenge of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of “Director review following a pair of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• another article discussing the Federal Circuit’s affirmation of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling “that certain claims were invalid as anticipated by an earlier priority application from the same family”; and
• yet another article explaining how the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board determined that “[a] trademark registration applicant can’t register a mark for a business that is in the ‘nascent stage.’”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three opinions: a precedential opinion addressing jurisdiction in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; a precedential opinion in an international trade case; and a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case. 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 respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last report, however, ten new petitions have been filed in patent, government contract, veterans, and pro se cases; briefs in opposition have been filed in three patent and veterans cases; replies in support of petitions have been filed in three patent cases; the Court requested a response to a petition in a patent case; and the Court denied petitions in three patent, trademark, and pro se cases. Here are the details.