FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued six precedential opinions in veterans, government contract, and patent cases. The patent cases address issues of claim construction, damages expert testimony, the written description requirement, and eligibility. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases. 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, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update five new petitions were filed with the Court: one in a government contract case, one in a veterans case, two in takings cases, and one in a pro se case. Additionally, two waivers of rights to respond were filed, one amicus brief was filed in a takings case, and three briefs in opposition to petitions addressing patent eligibility and preclusion were filed. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the United States Court of Federal Claims. 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 a new petition raising questions related to Appointments Clause challenges with respect to Administrative Patent Judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

On August 6 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Buffington v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Chief Judge Moore as well as Judges Lourie and O’Malley. These judges considered whether the Secretary of Veterans Affairs exceeded his statutory authority when he promulgating a regulation related to the timing of resumption of disability benefits payments following a period of active military service. Chief Judge Moore authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Judge O’Malley dissented. This is our opinion summary. 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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 Patent Office “let’s women shine in court while Big Law sends men,”
• commentary on a Federal Circuit decision addressing the timeline limitations on interlocutory appeals,
• a blog post discussing a transition in the position of the Deputy Director of the USPTO, and
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit case that may determine an Appointments Clause challenge to the members of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a tax case appealed from the Court of International Trade and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On August 5 the Federal Circuit issued a new panel opinion in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted numerous amicus briefs. Chief Judge Moore and Judges Newman and Prost formed the panel hearing this case. The court’s new opinion was filed per curiam, with Judge Prost authoring a dissent. In the new opinion, the court again vacated a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law “because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of induced infringement.” Furthermore, as before, the panel reinstated the jury’s damages award “because the district court did not err in its jury instructions on damages.” But the new panel opinion is most notable because it addresses the arguments made in the amicus briefs supporting rehearing. Those amicus briefs argued that the panel’s original opinion “could be read to upset the careful balance struck with . . . carve-outs” in the context of Hatch-Waxman. Indeed, the case involved an alleged, so-called “skinny label,” a label that omits language indicating infringing use. In the panel’s new opinion, the majority maintained that its “narrow, case-specific review of substantial evidence does not upset the careful balance struck by the Hatch-Waxman Act regarding [such] carve-outs.” Here we provide the court’s description of the background of the case, a summary of the court’s analysis, and relevant parts of Judge Prost’s dissent. 

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