FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

• CAFC Upholds District Court Finding for Netflix Invalidating Adaptive Patent Under 101 – The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that Adaptive Streaming Inc.’s patent claims were directed at an abstract idea and thus were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• 3 Key Questions As Cleveland MLB Team Mulls New Name – On Monday, Major League Baseball team the Cleveland Indians announced that it is starting the process to change its name as teams continue to face pressure to drop their “disparaging monikers.”
• Employment Law and Patent Law Collide: Federal Circuit Rules that California’s Non-Compete Restrictions Also Limit the Scope of Patent and Invention Assignment Clauses – The Federal Circuit ruled that certain employment agreement provisions requiring former employees to assign their inventions to their employer after such employment ends are not permitted in California.

Here’s the latest.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, former owners of bump-fire type rifle stocks assert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed a taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions: one in a veterans case and one in an international trade case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case, one in a case involving the Tucker Act, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a transfer of a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

As we previously reported, last week the Federal Circuit issued an en banc opinion in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. After deciding that NOVA had standing and the court had jurisdiction over the case, the court held that a Federal Circuit rule setting a filing deadline for certain petitions was inconsistent with a federal statute and therefore invalid. Notably, to reach these conclusions, the court not only invalidated one of its rules but also overruled three of its cases. Here is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and a Rule 36 judgment in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of them was a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.” This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Telephonic oral argument was scheduled in the veterans case pending before the en banc court. As for petitions in patent cases, highlights include two new petitions raising questions related to transfer of venue and eligible subject matter; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising a question related to venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and three amicus briefs filed in support of a petitioner in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal of a denial of benefits in a veterans case decided by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

• Fed. Circ. Again Says No State Sovereign Immunity In IPRs – In Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Baylor College of Medicine, the Federal Circuit held that plaintiffs can request inter partes reviews of state universities’ patents and sovereign immunity does not apply.
• Federal Circuit Tries to Wrap Its Arms Around Functional Biotech Patent Claims – The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments last Wednesday and focused on the application of the enablement requirement to Amgen’s patent covering therapeutic antibodies.
• Del. Chief Urges Creativity When Litigating Patent Eligibility – Chief Judge Leonard Stark addressed the resolution of patent eligibility issues within litigation during a panel discussion on Friday.

Here’s the latest.