FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article predicting how a recent Federal Circuit decision [will] likely provide a route for judges and plaintiffs in patent cases to circumvent an international treaty that creates hurdles when serving complaints on foreign defendants”;
• an article analyzing “the unsettled and contentions nature of [patent] infringement in the skinny-label context”; and
• an article report discussing how last week the Federal Circuit issued an order “forcing U.S. District Judge Alan Albright to move [a] patent dispute . . . from his court in Waco, Texas, . . . to Northern California.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued three nonprecedential orders. All three orders ruled on to petitions for writs of mandamus to transfer cases out of the Western District of Texas. The court denied petitions in two of the orders, but granted the petition in one of the orders. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.  

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer six actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for extraordinary relief in a veterans case and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the orders and a link to the erratum.

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

• a blog post arguing that “the Federal Circuit should release all dispositive orders on its website, not just decisions labeled as ‘opinions’ or summary affirmances under Rule 36”;
• an article discussing how “[p]atent owners are looking to past [forum selection clauses in] agreements they signed with the companies they are accusing of infringement to head off challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• another blog post discussing an opinion addressing whether “ATJs [Administrative Trademark Judges] [are] unconstitutionally appointed principal officers like their APJ cousins”; and
• an article observing “that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8–the rule setting forth the pleading standards applicable to civil actions in federal court–in patent cases is hard to reconcile with modern U.S. Supreme Court precedent on Rule 8.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s arguments. 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. Since our last update two new petitions were filed, one raising a question related to patent law’s definiteness requirement and one in a pro se case. Two amicus briefs were filed in a case raising questions concerning the clear and unmistakeable error standard with regarding to a claim for veterans’ benefits. Two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in government contracts and pro se cases. A reply was filed in support of a petition in a veterans case. And, finally, a supplemental brief was filed in a government contracts case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus addressing the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of constitutional standing. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to assignments of patents and the non-obviousness requirement. The court also invited responses to petitions in two cases concerning the standard of review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions and assignments of patents. Lastly, the court denied a petition for rehearing en banc in a case raising questions related to Appointments Clause challenges with respect to Administrative Patent Judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the United States Court of Federal Claims. The opinion reviews a denial of a motion for attorney fees. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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 outcome of a patent case originating at the International Trade Commission;
• a post discussing how the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that claims did not meet the requirement of eligibility; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit found that UGG AUSTRALIA was a valid trademark and not generic; and
• another article discussing how two recent Federal Circuit decisions may be “welcome news for federal employees at all agencies.”