FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article explaining how “Zaxcom has petitioned the court for rehearing en banc, arguing that the CAFC’s precedent . . . ‘confused the law’ regarding a rebuttable presumption of nexus”;
• another article discussing how “[a] split US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that US chemical company BASF is able to be sued” for alleged infringement; and
• a blog post discussing how, “[i]n a new petition for writ of certiorari, Cisco asks for guidance on whether enhanced damages under Section 284 require ‘egregious infringement behavior’ or instead is it enough to find ‘deliberate or intentional infringement.’”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The opinion affirms a finding lack of jurisdiction for an appeal under the Whistleblower Protection Act and Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a combined petition for panel and en banc rehearing. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight three opinions: the first in an Equal Access to Justice Act case, the second granting petitions seeking writs of mandamus challenging orders of the Western District of Texas regarding transfer motions, and the third in a trademark case. We also highlight a response brief filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions.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 The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

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 the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in a patent case addressing the written description requirement and ownership of patents;
• another blog post explaining how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to address a challenge to the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate ex parte reexaminations based on estoppel; and
• an article assessing the Federal Circuit’s recent determination that “claims of a patent relating to methods for treating acne are invalid because they would be obvious to someone skilled in the field.”

This afternoon, the Federal Circuit announced the swearing-in of its newest Judge, the Honorable Leonard P. Stark. Judge Stark served as Chief Judge for the District of Delaware from 2014 to 2021. In that time he presided over hundreds of patent cases and will, as a result, bring a wealth of experience in patent cases to the bench of the Federal Circuit. We congratulate Judge Stark and look forward to his service at the Federal Circuit. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and related to that court’s invalidation of Veterans Affairs regulations. The court also issued a nonprecedential order voluntarily dismissing a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. This week, the Supreme Court set a date for oral argument in a veterans case that raises questions regarding the scope of clear and unmistakable error. As for still pending petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case raising questions related to patent eligibility; one brief in opposition was filed in another patent case raising questions related to enablement; and one reply in support of a petition was submitted in a government contract case. Here are the details.

Recently FedCircuitBlog, in conjunction with the Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation at SMU Dedman School of Law, hosted its third online symposium. Titled “Patent Law and Institutional Choice,” this symposium focused on the latest legal developments and judicial decisions addressing the institutional structure of the U.S. patent system and the role of its institutions. Over the past several weeks, FedCircuitBlog published written contributions from each of the symposium’s nine panelists. Here, we wrap up our online symposium by linking to and highlighting the focus of each contribution.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in a patent case denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Notably, Judge Lourie dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, and his opinion was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Newman. In the dissenting judges’ view, the panel decision confused patent law’s written description requirement. In addition to this order, the court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning attorneys’ fees. Finally, late yesterday the court issued a nonprecedential order concerning a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the order and opinions.