FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases, four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and one nonprecedential order in a patent case dismissing an appeal as moot. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

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

• New petitions were filed in (1) Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States and (2) Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States.
• In Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, the United States submitted it’s brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari.

Here are the details.

As we reported earlier today, a Federal Circuit panel this morning issued a precedential order in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. The order is important. It highlights the potential reach of the Federal Circuit’s decision earlier this year in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. Indeed, it suggests that Administrative Patent Judges are unconstitutionally appointed with respect to every aspect of their work: not just inter partes reviews, and not just inter partes reexaminations, but also everything else, including ex parte reexaminations, covered business method review, and ex parte appeals.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential order unsealing it; two precedential orders in a patent case denying panel and en banc rehearing respectively; and nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, two patent cases, and a tax case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

May the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reject a motion to amend a patent in an inter partes review because the Board concludes that a proposed substitute claim does not comply with the eligibility requirement? The Federal Circuit considered that question during an oral argument last week in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC. As discussed in our argument preview, the case attracted an amicus brief in favor of the Board’s position that it may consider eligibility in this context. Here is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Hardy v. United States. Hardy v. United States is a takings case on appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. The case concerns whether several deeds at issue granted an interest in fee simple or an easement in the disputed parcels of land.

Here is a review of the case and issues on appeal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in five cases raising questions related to eligibility, claim construction, novelty, and non-obviousness; an amicus brief in a case raising a question related to eligibility; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to eligibility, the Appointments Clause, and non-obviousness. Here are the details.

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

• Full Federal Circuit Will Consider Court Review of VA Rules – The Federal Circuit will consider whether it lacks jurisdiction to review interpretive rules in the VA’s administrative staff manual.
• CAFC Issues Another Precedential Decision on Standing – In a recent opinion, the Federal Circuit addressed standing requirements regarding IPRs.
• Federal Circuit Sinks Another Attempt to Use PTO Guidance – The Federal Circuit makes clear that it does not apply USPTO guidance when determining subject matter eligibility.

Here’s the latest.

Last week three argued cases attracted amicus briefs. One was a veterans case, Sellers v. Wilkie. In it, the Federal Circuit considered “[w]hether a claimant’s general statement requesting benefits on a formal claim form that identifies specific disabilities constitutes a claim for all ‘reasonably identifiable’ diagnoses within the claimant’s records.” The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. and the National Veterans Legal Services Program filed an amicus brief supporting the claimant. Here is our argument recap.