FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing a request for rehearing of a Federal Circuit decision finding “that Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions can render patent claims invalid in later U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proceedings”; and
• an article reporting on the Federal Circuit’s opinion affirming “most aspects of an obviousness ruling issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated radio communications patent claims owned by Philips.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion affirms a summary judgment of invalidity in a patent infringement suit. The nonprecedential opinion affirms the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s dismissal of an opposition. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders on its website given the Labor Day holiday. Late in the day on Friday, however, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case as moot. Here is a link to the dismissal.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 10 panels to consider 54 cases. Of the 54 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 37 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, none of the cases scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here are the scheduled cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released ten nonprecedential orders. Nine of the orders were dismissals while the remaining order vacates a judgment and remands a case to the Court of Federal Claims in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Here is the introduction to this last order 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 discussing the Federal Circuit’s decision to reject Apple Inc.’s request to “expedite oral arguments in its appeal challenging” a decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission, which banned the sale of Apple Watches with a blood oxygen feature; and
• an article detailing how in a recent decision the Federal Circuit “sided with Apple Inc.,” ending a decade-long patent dispute brought by the University of Wisconsin’s patent licensing arm involving “several generations of allegedly infringing processors used in iPhones and iPads.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinions affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second affirms a judgment of the Western District of Wisconsin in a patent case. As for the nonprecedential opinions, the first comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the second in an appeal from the International Trade Commission. The five nonprecedential orders were all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the two cases pending at the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit, merits briefs and amicus briefs were filed. With respect to petitions, five new petitions were filed, three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed, two new waivers of the right to respond were filed, and one new amicus brief was filed. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, both of which were dismissals. Here are links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new responses to three petitions raising questions relating to the authority of the International Trade Commission, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and the use of comparable licenses to calculate damages awards. The court also received two new amicus briefs supporting a petition relating to attorney fees and invited a response to the same petition. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising issues related to design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and personal jurisdiction. Here are the details.