FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the court issued one nonprecedential order denying petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text from the order.

Late yesterday the Federal Circuit granted a petition for a writ of mandamus related to a transfer motion filed in the Western District of Texas in a patent case. Notably, the Federal Circuit found that “the district court’s handling of the transfer motion up until this point in the case has amounted to egregious delay and blatant disregard for precedent.” As a result, the Federal Circuit ordered the district court to “stay all proceedings concerning the substantive issues in the case until such time that it has issued a ruling on the transfer motion capable of providing meaningful appellate review of the reasons for its decision.” Presumably the Federal Circuit issued the order late yesterday given that the district court had scheduled a hearing on the transfer motion for this morning. But, according to yesterday’s order, the district court scheduled that hearing only after the Federal Circuit ordered the filing of a response to the petition by yesterday. Here is the text of yesterday’s order.

• Trademark Next Hot Area of IP Law, Federal Circuit Judge Says – At a recent webinar, Judge Kathleen O’Malley foresees an active next few years for trademark law.
• US Says Oil Companies’ WWII-Era Cleanup Cost Claims Barred – The federal government is asking the Federal Circuit to deny relief to oil companies for the costs related to pollution cleanup from World War II.
• Olaplex, L’Oréal Lose Federal Circuit Appeals Over Haircare Patent – The Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision in L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Olaplex, Inc. to invalidate certain claims of an Olaplex patent while other claims remain valid.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred by invalidating a claim for anticipation when the relevant petition asserted only obviousness. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case affirming PTAB findings of obviousness. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit.  As in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will convene 14 panels to consider about 66 cases. Of these 66 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 34. Of the argued cases, only one–Arellano v. Tran, an en banc veterans case–attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

Late this afternoon the Federal Circuit announced that all telephonic hearings will proceed as scheduled next week, regardless of any inclement weather. Here is the text of the court’s announcement.

Today, the Federal Circuit Clerk’s Office provided a notice advising the public that, while in-person filings are now available, the court encourages the filing of paper documents through the U.S. Postal Service. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential errata. Here are the errata.

• Justices Told Patentees Deserve Fee Refund For PTAB Losses – A patent owner seeks Supreme Court review of a Federal Circuit’s ruling that one cannot recover fees and otherwise be compensated for patents invalidated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The petitioner argues such a ruling is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment takings clause.
• Companies ‘Doing Backflips’ at Top Patent Court Seek SCOTUS Help – A petition before the Supreme Court seeks to resolve uncertainty for parties in patent infringement cases who, under the current standard, risk revealing product secrets in order to challenge a competitor’s patent.
• SCOTUS Won’t Resuscitate Heart Monitor Patent Case – The Supreme Court refused to review a Federal Circuit decision that held that a cardiac monitor patent was a patent-eligible improvement to heart monitoring equipment and not directed to an abstract idea.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. In it, the court reviewed the non-obviousness patentability requirement as applied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a post-grant review proceeding. Here is the introduction to the opinion.