FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments in cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This past Tuesday, the court heard oral argument in Monroe v. United States, an appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. We have been following this Equal Access to Justice Act case because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, the United States asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what it characterizes as an abuse of discretion by the trial court in awarding attorney’s fees and expenses to the plaintiff-appellee. Monroe contends he “prevailed at each procedural stage of the litigation” and, as result, “a fully compensatory fee award was warranted.” The arguments regarding the award of fees and expenses in an EAJA action attracted an amicus brief in support of Monroe. Judges Moore and Chen heard Tuesday’s argument. Judge Clevenger was assigned to this panel, but he was not present for the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case, affirming the District of New Jersey’s judgment that the plaintiff did not establish proper venue under the patent venue statute with respect to the named domestic defendants and did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted with respect to the named foreign defendant. The Federal Circuit also released five Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a list of 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:

• two articles discussing how Chief Judge Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware will be President Biden’s second nominee to the Federal Circuit;
• another article detailing how “Judge Tiffany P. Cunningham, the Federal Circuit’s first addition to the judge lineup in six years, hit the ground running during her first appearance on the bench”; and
• a blog post addressing the Federal Circuit’s handling of venue and mandamus petitions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the first, a precedential opinion, the court reverses an obviousness determination. In the second, a nonprecedential opinion, the court affirms findings of anticipation and obviousness given a lack of error in claim construction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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, since our last update the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Additionally, since our last update no new petitions have been filed with the Court. As for previously filed petitions, however, in three patent cases four briefs in opposition were filed. In addition, the Court denied a petition in another patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Today the White House announced President Biden’s intent to nominate Leonard Stark, currently a District Judge for the District of Delaware, to serve as a Circuit Judge on the Federal Circuit. The announcement highlighted Judge Stark’s extensive experience serving as a judge in the District of Delaware, which handles a substantial share of the nation’s patent infringement cases at the trial level. This announcement follows news of Judge Kathleen O’Malley’s planned retirement, scheduled for March, 2022. Notably, this will be President Biden’s second nomination to the Federal Circuit, following the nomination of now-Judge Tiffany Cunningham. Here is the text of today’s announcement, followed by some additional information about Judge Stark.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions, one raising a question related to comparable licenses and royalty calculations and another raising a question related to the written description requirement. The court received three more amicus briefs in support of rehearing en banc in a case that raises questions concerning the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman amendments. Finally, the court denied three petitions for rehearing en banc, one raising a question related to writs of mandamus and two raising the same questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

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

• an article about last Friday’s Fed Circuit Blog symposium, noting how two law professors “argued . . . that it might be time to reevaluate the 40-year ‘experiment’ of the Federal Circuit”;
• another article about Friday’s symposium, explaining that other “law professors . . . were torn between whether the appeals court was ‘overstepping’ or reacting rationally to a judge who does not always take the court’s direction”;
• a blog post discussing the backgrounds of the judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit ruling that a “heart monitor patent . . . is invalid for claiming only an abstract idea.”