FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion in patent cases, as well as a precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

• Challenging Therapeutics IP After Fed. Circ. Drink Can Ruling – Issued on the last day of 2020, the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. v. Crown Packaging Technology Inc., raises important considerations for patent challengers alleging the indefiniteness of measurement claim terms that describe pharmacologic or physicochemical properties of an invention.
• Apple Transfer Win Survives Bid for Full Federal Circuit Review – The Federal Circuit denied a petition for an en banc review of an earlier decision that enabled Apple to transfer its case to the Northern District of California.
• Federal Circuit Says PTAB Failed to Provide Proper Notice to IPR Respondent of Anticipation Theory – A recent Federal Circuit decision held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in finding a claim anticipated by prior art even though the petition for inter partes review had only asserted obviousness as to the claim.  

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming a rejection of a patent application for claiming unpatentable subject matter. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Arellano v. Tran. In this case, the court is considering the availability of equitable tolling in the context of a statutory provision addressing veterans who request disability benefits by filing an application within one year from the date of the their discharge or release. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in government contract cases. Additionally, the court issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions for writ of certiorari in Christy, Inc. v. United States, and in Wynkoop v. Department of Defense.
• One new brief in response to the petition was filed with the Court by Apple in Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC.
• One new amicus brief was filed with the Court in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC by the Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, a second in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a third in a case dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court will hear oral argument tomorrow in a veterans case. As for patent cases, highlights include new petitions questions related to inter partes review, enablement, and eligible subject matter; a new response to a petition raising questions related to the intersection of inducement of infringement and Hatch-Waxman; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to eligible subject matter, enablement, the intersection of venue and Hatch-Waxman, and the presumption of validity. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the court issued one nonprecedential order denying petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text from the order.

Late yesterday the Federal Circuit granted a petition for a writ of mandamus related to a transfer motion filed in the Western District of Texas in a patent case. Notably, the Federal Circuit found that “the district court’s handling of the transfer motion up until this point in the case has amounted to egregious delay and blatant disregard for precedent.” As a result, the Federal Circuit ordered the district court to “stay all proceedings concerning the substantive issues in the case until such time that it has issued a ruling on the transfer motion capable of providing meaningful appellate review of the reasons for its decision.” Presumably the Federal Circuit issued the order late yesterday given that the district court had scheduled a hearing on the transfer motion for this morning. But, according to yesterday’s order, the district court scheduled that hearing only after the Federal Circuit ordered the filing of a response to the petition by yesterday. Here is the text of yesterday’s order.