FedCircuitBlog

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.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming in part and reversing in part a decision appealed from the United States Patent and Trademark Office in an inter partes review proceeding. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

One patent case being argued next week, Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., attracted amicus briefs. In this case, Kannuu appeals an adverse decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On appeal, Kannuu argues that inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung should have been enjoined due to a forum selection clause in a contractual agreement among the parties. Kannuu contends that the district court erroneously denied its related motion for a preliminary injunction. The arguments regarding the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract attracted dueling amicus briefs. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, this week the Court decided Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., in which the Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s approach to the assignor estoppel doctrine. Additionally, three cases were granted, vacated, and remanded based on the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. regarding application of the Appointments Clause to administrative patent judges. As for petition cases:

Here are the details.

• a reply brief was submitted in support of a petition in a government contract case;
• the government filed a waiver of right to respond in a patent case;
• the Court dismissed one petition; and
• the Court denied five petitions, including four regarding application of the Appointments Clause to administrative patent judges.