FedCircuitBlog

This morning, in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order denying both a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Newman and O’Malley wrote opinions dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. Here is text from the order and the introductions to both dissenting opinions.

Here is an 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 recent dispositions in two patent cases and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a copyright case attracting two amicus briefs, new briefing (including a second amicus brief) in a patent case, and two recent oral arguments in a patent and a veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions: one affirming a district court in a patent case and one affirming the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in a veterans case. 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. As for granted cases, we are still waiting for the Court to issue opinions in the two pending patent cases. As for petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case raising an Appointments Clause challenge; one respondent filed a brief in opposition to a petition raising questions related to an inmate’s right to assert patent infringement; the government submitted a waiver of its right to respond to a petition in a pro se case; and the Court requested a response to a petition raising questions related to preclusion. Additionally, four petitioners filed reply briefs in cases presenting questions related to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction, the Appointments Clause, and retroactivity in agency adjudication.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion affirming a decision in a trade case appealed from the United States Court of International Trade. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. It was a busy week at the Federal Circuit. The court received two new petitions in cases addressing issues of enablement, eligibility, and personal jurisdiction. Additionally, the court invited responses in three cases addressing termination of inter partes review proceedings, evaluation of expert opinions on summary judgment, and competitor standing. The court also received a response to a petition raising a question related to enablement. Lastly, the court issued two new denials, one in a case concerning 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and another in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court with respect to its decision addressing prosecution laches and held the remainder of the case in abeyance. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

SCOTUS Denies Review of Patent Dispute over Groundbreaking Cancer Treatment – Blake Brittain wrote an article for Reuters explaining the Supreme Court’s decision to decline review in Ono Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. 

Slow down on Mandamus: Federal Circuit Refuses to Short Circuit Judge Albright’s Decision Process – On PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch posted about another mandamus venue case arriving at the Federal Circuit from Judge Albright’s Waco, Texas courtroom. 

Here’s the latest.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today given the Memorial Day holiday.

This month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. That brief argued that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “trial system violates due process.” The brief pointed to an alleged “October Effect” where administrative patent judges allegedly “change their judging standards at the end and beginning of each performance evaluation period” and subjective performance evaluations that allegedly cause reasonable people to “question whether the PTAB invalidates patents so frequently because its constituent APJs try to please their budget-minded bosses through revenue-enhancing decision making.” Notably, Judge Moore authored a brief majority opinion vacating and remanding two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based only on the Appointments Clause. Judge Newman concurred in part and dissented in part, but also did not address the alleged due process violation. This is our opinion summary.