FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a trade case, and a veterans case. The court also issued a nonprecedential erratum and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the erratum, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

• Fed. Circ. Asked To Keep Movie Theater IP Suit In Texas – Arguing that the case should stay in Texas, Intertrust Technologies Corp. asks the Federal Circuit to reject a petition from Regal Cinemas, AMC, and Cinemark to transfer the lawsuit to California.
• Nike Golf Club Patent Dispute Do-Over Weighed by Fed. Cir. Panel – Saso Golf, Inc. urges a Federal Circuit panel to send its patent infringement case back down to the lower court and assign the case to a new a judge, even though the original suit was filed twelve years ago.
• Fed. Circ. Affirms Chevron Loss In PTAB Interference – A split Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly construed a key term to find that the University of Wyoming Research Corporation was entitled to a patent involving a method for analyzing crude oil in an interference proceeding against Chevron.

Here’s the latest.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit also heard oral argument in Boeing Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force. We have been following this case because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, the court is considering whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in holding that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 252.227-7013 precludes government contractors from marking technical data delivered to the Government in a certain way. In particular, Boeing argues it should be permitted to mark technical data in a way that (a) recognizes the Government’s unlimited rights in the data, (b) does not restrict or impair the Government’s rights, and (c) restricts only the rights of third parties to use the data absent permission from the contractor or the Government. This is our argument recap.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Monk v. Wilkie, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted four amicus briefs. This case presents three issues: (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 claims. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case. The Federal Circuit also issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• Two briefs in response to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Comcast in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and the second by the government in Strand v. United States.
• One waiver of right to respond to the petition in Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc. was filed with the Court by Tenant Turner.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and three nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases. The court also issued two 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. Three new petitions were filed, one in a patent case raising a question related to obviousness; another in a patent case raising a question related to anticipation; and another in a pro se case. As for previously-filed petitions, this week’s highlight is a response to a petition in a patent case raising questions related to claim construction and infringement in the context of compliance with an industry standard. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case and one in a government contract case. The Federal Circuit also issued two separate nonprecedential orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Veterans4You LLC v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Veterans4You asserts that the Department of Veterans Affairs wrongly invoked the “printing mandate” in 44 U.S.C. § 501 to route a VA procurement through the Government Publishing Office, which in turn violated the “Rule of Two” statutory preference for veteran-owned small businesses. This is our argument recap.