FedCircuitBlog

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 a recently filed petition for a writ of certiorari of a “May 2023 decision by the Federal Circuit that invalidated claims . . . covering method of treating Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder”;
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling “that a Georgia inventor’s car remote-starter patent that his company alleges was infringed by BMW AG is invalid in light of two previously published inventions”; and
• an article about how the Federal Circuit “denied Charles Bertini’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to decide his trademark cancellation case against Apple, Inc.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders. Two transfer cases to district courts, one transfers a case to another federal appellate court, and another remands a case to the Court of International Trade. The fifth order dismisses an appeal. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders, each dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the transfer and remand orders and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, five amicus briefs were submitted in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a veterans case and a patent case, and four waivers of right to respond were filed in four pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One order transfers a case, and the others are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and transfer order and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition for rehearing in a patent case concerning inter partes review proceedings and prior art. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders and an erratum. One order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus. The other grants a motion to remand for further proceedings. The erratum makes grammatical changes to a precedential opinion released yesterday. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for review. Here is text from today’s orders and links to the erratum and yesterday’s dismissal.

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

• an article discussing Apple’s plan to “introduce watches without the blood oxygen monitoring feature” after the Federal Circuit “lifted a stay of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s ban on the original products”; and
• an article highlighting how “[f]our 2023 opinions concerning claim construction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit offer lessons on how patent prosecution can affect later litigation.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. One of the precedential opinions addresses an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The other precedential opinion, which was previously released as a nonprecedential opinion, addresses an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Two of the nonprecedential opinions address appeals in patent cases—one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and another from a district court. The third nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, ultimately finding a lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the fourth nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case we are following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the District of Delaware ruling on patent infringement and invalidity claims. The district court held that, if approved, Norwich’s Abbreviated New Drug Application would induce infringement of certain Salix patent claims (the “HE,” “IBS-D,” and “Polymorph” claims). Additionally, the court held that, while Salix’s HE claims are nonobvious and therefore not invalid, the asserted Polymorph and IBS-D claims are invalid as obvious. Both parties appealed the district court’s judgment. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. It addresses an appeal from a final determination from the International Trade Commission in a patent matter. Here is the introduction to the opinion.