FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders this morning.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene fifteen panels to consider about 64 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Of the 64 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 42. Of these argued cases, four attracted amicus briefs: one in a government contract case and three in veterans cases. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

• Wrong case, right result, Fed Circuit holds in trademark win for Sprouts Farmers Market – The Federal Circuit concluded that the TTAB correctly determined that a challenger to Corcamore, LLC’s registration for the mark SPROUTS had standing, despite the fact that the TTAB applied the incorrect legal standard.
• USPTO Sees ‘Unprecedented Growth’ In AI Patent Apps – On Tuesday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a report recognizing the surge of AI-related patent applications.
• Trademark Office Issues Guidance for Post-Booking.com World – Although the Supreme Court rejected the USPTO’s bright-line rule against generic.com, applicants still have to establish that the mark holds distinct meaning to consumers.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order dismissing appeals and denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in a case decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here is the introduction of the order.

The fourth case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Euzebio v. Wilkie. In this case, the court will consider three issues related to veterans law: (1) whether “[t]he Veterans Court’s ‘direct relationship’ requirement is an erroneous legal standard for determining what facts are before the Board because it excludes relevant matters that are known or should be known to the Board;” (2) whether “the Veterans Court erred in holding that it lacks the legal authority to look at relevant facts known to the agency for purposes of reviewing the Board’s decision;” and (3) whether “the Veterans Court misinterpreted the scope of VA’s duty to assist when it affirmed VA’s failure to develop the record with relevant facts concededly known to the agency.” This is our argument preview.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any new opinions or orders this morning.

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

• One new petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court in Rutila v. Department of Transportation.
• Two reply briefs were filed with the Court, the first by HZNP in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. and the second by Whitserve in Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc.
• One amicus brief was filed with the Court in Cochlear Corp. v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research by a group of Intellectual Property Professors.
• Finally, one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court by RPX in IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.

Here are the details.

This month we highlight two scholarly articles related to the Federal Circuit.

• Retroactivity and Appointments
• Does Conjoint Analysis Reliably Value Patents?

Here are the details.

The third of four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Monk v. Wilkie. In this case, the court will consider three issues related to veterans law: (1) Did the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2) in holding that a five-year delay in deciding a disabled veteran’s administrative appeal does not amount to an unreasonable delay; (2) Did the CAVC misinterpret and misapply the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in holding that such a five-year delay does not violate the veteran’s due process rights; and (3) Did the CAVC misinterpret the mootness standard in dismissing certain Appellants’ claims. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus to vacate a district court’s denial of transfer. Here is text from the order.