FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit and Court of Federal Claims entered a joint order today extending their prior order of June 26, which limited access to the National Courts Building, until September 14. The Federal Circuit also issued a notice with additional information related to the order. Here is text from the court’s notice.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case.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

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

• In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Google and Oracle submitted supplemental briefs addressing the correct standard of review for the second question presented in the case.
• The following two petitions for writ of certiorari were submitted to the Supreme Court: (1) Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. and (2) Essity Hygiene and Health AB v. Cascades Canada ULC.
• Arthrex, Inc. submitted its reply to the Court in the Appointments Clause petition Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
• In The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Techtronic filed its brief in opposition to the petitioner’s argument for granting certiorari.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a government contracts case and a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a sua sponte grant of an en banc hearing in a veterans case, the filing of the government’s brief in another veterans case in which the court previously granted an en banc hearing, a new petition raising questions related to patent claim construction, the denial of a petition raising questions related to injunctive relief, and the denial of a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Vaccine Act case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the erratum.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights an article discussing the potential impact of the Federal Circuit’s holding in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States on fees for searching and downloading federal case files, more commentary on the confusion generated by the Federal Circuit’s approach to patent eligibility in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, and news concerning Fitbit’s case decided by the Federal Circuit last Thursday.

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

Last Wednesday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, NVLSP argues that that the federal government has been overcharging for electronic access to documents filed in court cases. This case was brought to the Federal Circuit as an interlocutory appeal seeking to clarify the correct interpretation of a federal statute, 28 U.S.C § 1913. In the opinion, the panel (including Judge Lourie, Clevenger, and Hughes) unanimously affirmed a district court’s interpretation of the statute and remanded the case back to the district court for it to resolve the case using the correct interpretation. Here is a summary of the opinion.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Conversant Wireless Licensing v. Apple Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the court addressed a district court’s holding that Conversant’s ’151 patent is unenforceable because Nokia, the original patentee, made an untimely disclosure of the patent to the ETSI standards setting body. On appeal, Conversant argues that implied waiver of enforceability requires proof of but-for causation that Conversant inequitably benefited from the untimely disclosure. Judges Reyna and Bryson heard the oral argument, and a third unnamed judge will join the panel later for deliberation and final judgment. This is our argument recap.