FedCircuitBlog

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This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential errata.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This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case.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.

This week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Monk v. Tran, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Chen authored a unanimous panel opinion affirming in part a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and dismissing in part the appeal as moot. Specifically, the Federal Circuit agreed that a petition for a writ of mandamus filed at the Veterans Court was moot with respect to several veterans because, after the filing the petition but before the Veterans Court’s disposition of the petition, those veterans received decisions by the Board of Veterans Appeals. The Federal Circuit similarly dismissed as moot another veteran’s appeal because, by the time of the Federal Circuit’s disposition of his appeal, he had received a Board decision on the merits of his case. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• Two response and reply briefs were filed with the Court by the United States and by Smith & Nephew in a case that has been granted certiorari, United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• Two amicus briefs were filed with the Court: the first by the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, and the second by a non-profit advocacy organization, US Inventor, Inc., in Akeva L.L.C. v. Nike, Inc.
• One new waiver of right to respond was filed by Iancu in Samaranayake v. Iancu.
• The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in the case of InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an international trade case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Telephonic oral argument is scheduled next week in an en banc veterans case, Arellano v. Wilkie. As for patent cases, petitions were filed in four cases raising questions related to an award of attorney’s fees, eligible subject matter, deference to findings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and standing. In addition, a new response was filed arguing against the grant of a petition raising questions related to injunctive relief. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.