FedCircuitBlog

On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the long-running software copyright case. The Court sided with Google in a 6-2 opinion, holding that Google’s copying of the Java API code constituted fair use. Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion for the Court and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Gorsuch. Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Alito. Justice Barrett did not participate in the case. Here is a summary of the majority and dissenting opinions.

• Set Phase to Subject Matter Ineligible: More Accurate Haplotype Phase Method Still Abstract – A patent for determining haplotype phase could not survive review under Alice according to the PTAB and the Federal Circuit.
• Federal Circuit Says Hawaii Telecom’s FCC Suit Belongs In DC Circuit – In Sandwich Isles Communications v. United States, the Federal Circuit denied an appeal seeking nearly $200 million in lost subsidies after the FCC cut off funding.

Here’s the latest.

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

This morning the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s finding of copyright fair use in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. Justice Breyer authored the Court’s majority opinion, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch joined. Justice Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, which Justice Alito joined. Justice Barrett did not participate in the case. Here are the introductions to the majority and dissenting opinions.

• Full Fed. Circ. Won’t Review Motion Sensor Patent Fight – The full Federal Circuit chose not to disturb a panel’s decision to uphold part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that struck down several claims of a motion sensor patent.
• Good News/Bad News: Patent Owners and Petitioners Both Make Gains in CAFC Uniloc Decision – Experts analyze the effects of the Federal Circuit’s recent Uniloc 2017 v. Facebook Inc. decision that raised numerous estoppel issues.

Here’s the latest.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. As in the past several months, the court will hear its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Notably, however, this month the Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel rather than via telephone conference calls as in past months. In total, the court will convene 16 panels to consider about 61 cases. Of these 61 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 41. 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.

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

Guest Post by Blair E. Thompson

In 2020, the Federal Circuit addressed important questions regarding “pro-claimant” policies and rules governing the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also approved VA’s interpretation of its regulation regarding discharges due to “willful and persistent misconduct” and paved the way for challenges to VA’s internal adjudication policies and procedures manual.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus related to two district court cases involving contract disputes. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Guest Post by James M. Eisenmann

In a series of precedential decisions in 2020 (and early 2021), the Federal Circuit limited the impact of the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act — holding that U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) still may review the reasonableness of imposed penalties and that Veterans Affairs (VA) may not use 38 U.S.C. § 714 to remove employees for conduct or performance that occurred prior to the enactment of the Act. See, Sayers v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 954 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Harrington v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 981 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2020); and Brenner v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 19-2032 (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2021).