FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article focusing on the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision overruling a district court’s conclusion that [patent] claims were directed to ineligible subject matter;
• a blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that a forum selection clause did not apply to inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
• an article addressing how the Federal Circuit found that “claims of a patent covering an artificial heart valve were erroneously held to be unpatentable by the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board”; and
• a blog post discussing how “the Federal Circuit affirmed an exclusion order by the [International Trade] Commission” in a patent case.

Early this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in The Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case involved allegations the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) committed takings under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when it banned bump-fire type rifle stocks. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case, and Judges Taranto, Wallach, and Chen heard the appeal. Judge Taranto authored a short non-precedential opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claims, and Judge Wallach authored an opinion concurring in the result. This is our opinion summary. 

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions today on its website given the Columbus Day federal holiday.

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

• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “has been tearing through mandamus petitions on the issue of inconvenient venue”; and
• an article analyzing the Federal Circuit’s recent reversal of a lower court’s finding of patent ineligibility.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued three 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 discussing how, “in many IP cases involving foreign defendants,” circumventing Article 5 of the Hague Convention may provide a “sense of victory [that] might be premature”;
• an article addressing “whether portfolio patent licenses can be sufficiently comparable to a single-patent license for the purposes of supporting a patent damages verdict”;
• another blog post detailing the Federal Circuit’s clarification of “the distinction between conduct warranting enhanced damages and the lesser standard of willful infringement”; and
• a report about how the Federal Circuit “revived a military security contractor’s bid for reimbursement of a penalty charged by Afghanistan’s government.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions. Two of the opinions came in veterans cases appealed from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The third opinion came in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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, which began this week, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, however, two new petitions have been filed with the Court: one in a veterans case and one filed by a pro se petitioner. As for previously filed petitions, one brief in opposition and two waivers of right to respond were filed. Finally, the Court denied 22 petitions following its first conference of the new term. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a writ of mandamus to require transfer of a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Finally, the Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, five new amicus brief were filed in support of the appellant. As for requests for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received four new petitions raising questions relating to patent eligibility and claim construction. The court also invited a response to a petition that raised questions concerning the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the appropriate timing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal. Here are the details.