FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a tax case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition filed in a case raising a question related to jurisdiction over an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a dismissal agreement in a case raising questions related to vitiation; and the denial of petitions in three cases raising questions related to prosecution history estoppel and the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contracts case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

• USTPO Extends Patent and Trademark Deadlines – Due to COVID-19, the USPTO extends the time period to file patent and trademark related documents and provides waivers for certain fees.
• Patent Eligibility Turns on the Content and Not the Length of the Claim – The Federal Circuit emphasized, in Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, the importance of the content of a patent claim over its length in determining eligibility.
• Opinions Vary On Whether the USTPO May Make New Laws Without the Rule-making Process – The issue of whether the USPTO may properly make law using its procedural and POP process or whether the rules may only be made under the APA process is yet to be decided. 

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case and one Rule 36 judgment. Here is the text of the opinion and the Rule 36 judgment.

This week and next Monday the Federal Circuit will convene 14 panels to consider about 67 cases. This month, like last month, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, the court will hear fewer oral arguments than normal, with only about 35 cases being argued this month. Of the argued cases, only two related cases attracted amicus briefs.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions: one in a government contracts case, one in a takings case, and one in a tax case. The court also issued one precedential order in a government contracts case, as well as two nonprecedential opinions: one in a Merit Systems Protection Board case and one in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

• Judge Lourie Wins 2020 American Inns of Court Award – The American Inns of Court selected Judge Alan D. Lourie as the winner of the 2020 American Inns of Court Professionalism Award for the Federal Circuit.
• Prior Art-Based Invalidity Analysis Possible for Indefinite Claim – The Federal Circuit declined to find a claim with a means-plus-function element unpatentable because prior art analysis could still be possible when the means-plus-function element is used as an alternative structure to a non-means-plus-function structure.
• True Colors Shining Through – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in In re Forney Industries, Inc. may provide a new framework for creating product packaging that can be protected by trademark law.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order in a patent case vacating the court’s judgment and dismissing the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Here is text from the order.

This post summarizes the recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received responses for the following five petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission, and (5) Ford Motor Co. v. United States.
• The Supreme Court received replies in the four following petitions: (1) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., (3) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., and (4) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
• In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., Baxter International filed an amicus brief in favor of the respondent.

Here are the details.