FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and another nonprecedential opinion affirming a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims about subject-matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This month we highlight four recent papers related to the Federal Circuit. The first two discuss the interplay between Article III courts and executive agency regulations and decision making, particularly the application of the public rights doctrine and deference within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The third paper discusses the Federal Circuit’s approach to trademark registration. And the fourth discusses the mandate rule—specifically, how differences in the interpretation of the rule stem from a misunderstanding of the rule’s statutory origin. Here are more details on these papers.

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

District Court Thwarts $100 Million Damages Award, Finding Litigation Conduct Exceptional – On IPWatchDog, Gene Quinn writes about a long, drawn-out patent infringement battle that “saw action in front of a jury, at the district court, at the PTAB, at the Federal Circuit, and even . . . the Supreme Court.”

Oracle Files Yet Another JEDI Challenge with the U.S. Supreme Court – Sebastian Moss on DataCenterDynamics.com reports that the “US military appears trapped in an endless conflict with no clear winner.”

Performance-Based Actions: How Much Is Too Much? – In an article on FedSmith.com, Robbie Kunreuther reflects on a decision by the Federal Circuit concerning “unacceptable performance cases and how they should be addressed.”

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 dispositions, two upcoming oral arguments, and one case with new briefing. Here are the details.

In observance of Independence Day, the Federal Circuit is closed and will not issue any opinions today. Happy 4th of July!

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting tomorrow. For the last time since the start of the pandemic, the court will hear all its oral arguments telephonically. Again this month the Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene nine panels to consider about 44 cases. Of these 44 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 32. Of the argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs: one a veterans case and one a patent case. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

This past Tuesday, June 29, the Supreme Court decided Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. In a five to four opinion, the Court upheld the doctrine of assignor estoppel but found that the Federal Circuit “failed to recognize the doctrine’s proper limits.” Justice Kagan authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kavanaugh, and Sotomayor. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Barrett, who was joined by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas. Here is our summary of the Court’s opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This week and last the Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc. and Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., two patent cases appealed from the Federal Circuit. Here is a report on recent articles and blog posts related to these cases.

USPTO Provides Guidance on Director Review Process Under Arthrex – On IPWatchDog, Eileen McDermott and Steve Brachmann write about how after the Arthrex decision the Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would implement the Supreme Court’s remedy using an interim rule that gives the Acting Director the authority to consider requests for reconsideration of final decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

What Will Arthrex Review Look Like? – Bradley Roush and George E. Quillin posted an article on the National Law Review raising questions many are having about how the Patent and Trademark Office will implement the new Director-led review process.

Justices Uphold a Narrow Version of Patent Assignor Estoppel – On SCOTUSBlog, Eric M. Fraser discusses how the Supreme Court reached its decision in Minerva narrowing the doctrine of assignor estoppel.

Professor Kagan v. Professor Barrett, Round 1 of N – On the Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman posts about how in the Minerva case “two former professors were on opposite sides of the docket.”