FedCircuitBlog

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 Federal Circuit “upheld a U.S. trade tribunal’s decision that Google’s redesigns of products . . . were sufficient to avoid infringing Sonos’ multi-room wireless audio patents”;
• a blog post highlighting how a Federal Circuit decision “offers the important conclusion that a patentee has no standing to appeal an invalidity holding once the patent expires, absent some showing of likely infringement during the prior six years”; and
• an article about an argument before the Federal Circuit that a “more than $600 million judgment against NortonLifeLock for infringing Columbia University patents. . . is ‘indefensible’ and cannot stand.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which attracted two amicus briefs, addresses an appeal from a final judgment of a district court holding certain patent claims invalid as obvious. Judge Cunningham filed an opinion dissenting in part. One of the nonprecedential opinions affirms four final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, determining all claims are unpatentable over asserted prior art. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protections Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders transfer appeals to other United States appellate courts. Four of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer orders, and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a veterans case and a pro se case. Additionally, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case, and a reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential dismissals. One of the opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which denied an early effective date for disability compensation. The other opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied a request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It addresses a pro se challenge to a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. 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 “U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman asked a Washington, D.C., federal court on Friday to reject a bid from her fellow judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to end her lawsuit over their decision to suspend her from the bench”; and
• a similar article about how Judge Newman “argued in her opposition brief that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act violates the constitution.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, three dismissals, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a dismissal by the Court of International Trade for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Three of the nonprecedential opinions dismiss appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims—two for lack of jurisdiction and one for lack of a final judgment. Another two of the nonprecedential opinions affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The last nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found that a collection of imported products infringed certain patents, but also found certain redesigns not to infringe. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and seven Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article about how the “Federal Circuit was thrown for a loop Wednesday in a case that asked whether the holder of an exclusive patent license could sue for infringement another company that could have acquired a license for the same patent by other means”; and
• an article discussing how the “U.S. Supreme Court . . . dismissed a petition asking the Court to revisit and clarify its seminal holding in Alice v. CLS Bank.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, one Rule 36 summary affirmance, and one nonprecedential order. One of the two precedential opinions affirms a summary judgment by a district court in a patent case. The other precedential opinion resolves an appeal from a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the order denies a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a case to the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the order, and a link to the summary affirmance.