FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review. The court also denied a recent motion for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court denied a petition raising a question related to transfers of cases. Notably, all three of these cases involved Apple Inc. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and granting a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and 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 examining how the Federal Circuit affirms “[n]early 73%” of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions; 
• another article addressing how the Federal Circuit recently clarified the analysis of intrinsic evidence for allegedly indefinite claim terms; and
• a third article discussing how the Federal Circuit revived hundreds of lawsuits by plaintiffs who “say the Army Corps of Engineers temporarily took their property by releasing water from two dams.”

On Friday, the Federal Circuit announced that it intends to sit in the Philadelphia area as part of its November 2022 session. Here is the full text of the announcement.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene 10 panels to consider about 55 cases. Of these 55 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 39. Of these argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: two patent cases and one takings case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales USA, Inc., a patent case in which Thales appeals a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to “prevent Philips from pursuing an . . . exclusion order against Thales.” Two amicus briefs were filed in support of Thales, one by the App Association and the other a joint brief by Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., U-Blox America, Inc., and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One grants an unopposed motion to dismiss an appeal; the other grants a joint motion to dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

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

• an article interviewing several intellectual property attorneys about the Solicitor General’s brief in in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC;
• another article analyzing how the “Federal Circuit’s opinion and a potential Supreme Court affirmance may have far-reaching implications” in a pending case raising questions about patent law’s enablement requirement; and
• a third article discussing how the Federal Circuit recent found that a whiskey bearing a defunct investment firm’s name is likely to confuse customers.