FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases; one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case; one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case; and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

• U.S. Wrongly Linked 3 Steel Companies In Duty Probe – The U.S. Department of Commerce improperly tied steel companies together in an anti-dumping investigation, said the Federal Circuit.
• All Substantial Rights Deemed Test Informative – With the decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit endorses the “all substantial rights” test for the first time.
• Section 315(a) Calls At Institution Cannot Be Reviewed – Finally, the Federal Circuit applied the recent Supreme Court decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs to a Section 315(a) and (b) case.

Here’s the latest.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hardy v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case the government challenged a ruling by the Court of Federal Claims that a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) amounted to a taking of private property. In the opinion, a panel of the court (including Judges Newman, Lourie, and Stoll) unanimously affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. While the panel agreed with the lower court that Hardy has a compensable property interest, it vacated and remanded because the trial court did not focus on the relevant inquiry in analyzing the case. Here is a summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

This month the Federal Circuit scheduled oral argument in one case that attracted an amicus brief, Amgen Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, Amgen, a patent owner, asked the Federal Circuit to force a district court to vacate its judgment of non-infringement in favor of a consent judgment of infringement. The Federal Circuit, however, never heard oral argument. This is our update in place of our normal argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a trade case and three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• The Supreme Court received one new petition for writ of certiorari this week in the patent case Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Both the Honorable Randall R. Rader and High 5 Games submitted two new amicus briefs in support of the petitioner to the Court in the petition The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases, one precedential opinion in a takings case, and one precedential opinion in a trade case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition by a pro se appellant and the denial of two petitions in cases raising questions related to standing and obviousness. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

• Federal Circuit Denies Uniloc’s Motion to Seal Documents – In Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s no-seal order, with the exception of third party licensees who were promised confidentiality.
• Toyota Fails to Revive Patent on Fingerprint-Reducing Coating – On Friday, the Federal Circuit agreed with PTAB’s conclusion that Toyota’s patent for reducing fingerprints on touchscreens was invalid for obviousness in Toyota Motor Corp. v. Reactive Surfaces Ltd.
• Federal Circuit’s Ruling Could Make it Easier to Prove Infringement of SEPs – In Godo Kaisha IP Bridge I v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., the Federal Circuit seemed unconvinced by TCL’s oral argument against the district court’s finding that TCL infringed two IP Bridge patents.

Here’s the latest.