FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition filed in a case raising questions related to standing; a new invitation for responses to petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel as well as a new amicus brief in the same case; the denial of petitions in five cases raising questions related to claim construction, persons who may petition for post-issuance review proceedings, jurisdiction, and non-obviousness; and the grant of a motion to withdraw in a case raising questions related to vitiation. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a government contract case, one in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and one in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Federal Circuit Cancels Arguments Due to Building Inaccessibility – The Federal Circuit will be closed to the public and staff through at least June 7 to accommodate for the ongoing protests.
• Section 285 Attorney’s Fees Not Available for Pure Inter Partes Review – The Federal Circuit left open the question of whether fees can be awarded in connection with an IPR proceeding that was parallel to a district court action.
• Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement and Invalidity Judgments Against Designer of Chalk Holders – The court found that a company’s toy chalk holders, resembling No. 2 pencils, did not to infringe a design patent.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a case sanctioning an attorney, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case.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

Recently the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Caquelin v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted three amicus briefs. In the opinion, a Federal Circuit panel including Judges Prost, Linn, and Taranto unanimously affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) amounted to a taking of private property. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

• Federal Circuit Clerk’s Office Inaccessible Amidst Protests – Due to mass protests in Washington, D.C., the Federal Circuit clerk’s office was inaccessible for both Monday and Tuesday of this week.
• ‘Pump And Dump’ Victims To Recoup Losses – The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision in Adkins v. U.S. allowing “pump and dump” victims to recoup a two million dollar loss.
• Party May Have Standing with Incorrect Patent Assignment – In Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., the Federal Circuit found a reformation to an incorrect assignment does not deprive a plaintiff of Article III standing.

Here’s the latest.

The Federal Circuit late this evening announced the closure of the National Courts Building and the cancellation of tomorrow’s previously scheduled telephonic arguments. This announcement comes on the heels of two prior announcements this week that the clerk’s office would close in the afternoon and be inaccessible for paper filings. While the court did not explain the closure, besides the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the National Courts Building sits on Lafayette Square, the site of recent protests over police brutality. Here is the text of this evening’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential order in a patent case denying a request to award attorneys fees after the appellant moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and three nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases. Here are the introductions to the order and the opinions.

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

• Two new petitions were docketed by the Supreme Court this week. Those cases were B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Facebook, Inc. and Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
• The Supreme Court received four separate replies for the following petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Baley v. United States, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., and (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
• Finally, two new amicus briefs were submitted to the Court this week. The first by the Center for Auto Safety in Callan Campbell v. United States and the second by ACT | The App Association in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.