FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights commentary regarding the oral argument at the Supreme Court in Maine, Moda, and Land of Lincoln, a summary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Peter v. Nantkwest, and a report on an attorney (who recently made news for his arguments in an appeal at the Federal Circuit) being ordered to leave a courtroom in the Second Circuit.

On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United States. While both the insurance companies and the government faced a barrage of questions challenging their positions, the government seemed to face more significant resistance to its position. In short, it sounded like several members of the Court lean toward requiring the government to pay the insurance companies for losses incurred in participating in the health insurance market in reliance on a provision in the Affordable Care Act.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential
opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential order dismissing a case as moot
given two Rule 36 judgments involving the same parties. Here are the
introductions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. It was an exceptionally busy week. In granted cases, the Supreme Court decided Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. and heard oral arguments in four of its other cases. As for petitions cases, two petitions were denied and four new responses, two new replies, and three new amicus briefs were filed. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, a precedential order denying panel rehearing and another precedential order in the same case denying en banc rehearing, and four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Peter v. NantKwest, holding that the Patent and Trademark Office does not get to recover the salaries of its attorneys and paralegal employees when a patent applicant files a civil action in the United States District of Virginia to challenge a rejection of its application.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions (on whether Arthrex should be applied to cases pending on appeal at the time it was decided, and whether the PTAB must consider arguments not made or adopted by examiners), an amicus brief, and three denials of petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case along with three Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, a case addressing whether a patent owner has the right under the patent statute to appeal a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a petition for inter partes review was not filed after a statutory deadline. In short, while Justice Gorsuch appeared to agree with the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that patent owners have that right, several other Justices, and particularly Justice Kagan, seemed to harbor significant doubt that Congress had not eliminated the ability to appeal in this circumstance.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights news regarding a recent decision by the Federal Circuit in a veterans case related to Agent Orange exposure, today’s oral argument at the Supreme Court in three cases decided by the Federal Cirxuit, the Solicitor General’s recent amicus briefs suggesting the Supreme Court should wait to review a case concerning patent eligibility law, and a summary of Converse’s efforts to protect its Chuck Taylor shoe from alleged copyists.