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 how “the Federal Circuit has made a rare criticism of a precedential opinion panel (POP) decision” issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
• another article providing insight into how “some sizable jury awards from last year are now providing the Federal Circuit an opportunity to clarify important points of damages law”; and
• a third article detailing how the Federal Circuit recently overruled a lower court decision that parts of three patents were invalid for indefiniteness.

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

On March 9, the Federal Circuit issued an order granting petitions for writs of mandamus in In re Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and In re Hyundai Motor America, patent cases we have been following because they attracted amicus briefs. In the order, the Federal Circuit held that the Western District of Texas committed a clear abuse of discretion “for erroneously interpreting governing law and reaching a patently erroneous result” when that court denied motions to dismiss or transfer. Here is a summary of Federal Circuit’s order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion granting in part and dismissing in part a petition to review a final rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia and the Central District of California. Finally, late yesterday the court issued two nonprecedential orders dismissing cases for failure to prosecute. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in an Equal Access to Justice Act case and two in patent cases raising questions related to eligibility and enhanced damages; members of Congress filed an amicus brief in an employment law case that involves interpretation of the Reservists Pay Security Act; the government submitted a brief in opposition in a case concerning the Tucker Act and another brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the non-obviousness requirement; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied review in four cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. The opinion reversed a finding of invalidity. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in the fourth case, Judge Prost wrote a concurring opinion to explain that had a patentability challenge been preserved it likely would have succeeded. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders concerning, respectively, a dismissal for failure to prosecute and two voluntary dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

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 the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas, which dismissed a complaint based on ineligibility of the asserted patent claims;
• another article detailing how the Federal Circuit released a corrected decision that provides clarity on the question of estoppel based on inter partes review; and
• a third article assessing how “[e]x parte reexaminations have re-emerged as an increasingly important component of patent litigation and licensing negotiations.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The opinion affirms the Board’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an employment retaliation claim. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received four new petitions raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings, motivation to combine prior art references, and the presumption of nexus in a non-obviousness analysis. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and a response to a motion to expedite issuance of the mandate in a case raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. The court also invited a response to the petition already mentioned that raised a question related to motivation to combine prior art references. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential orders. The first denies a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Northern District of California seeking to order the district court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The second denies a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a discovery order in the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order late in the day yesterday granting a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the orders.