FedCircuitBlog

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One was Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative for summary judgment, in a government contract case. Judges Prost, Clevenger, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article including an interview with Judge Newman as “April 14 marks the one-year anniversary of when the Federal Circuit confirmed an unprecedented investigation into whether U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman was mentally and physically competent to remain on its bench”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]he full Federal Circuit declined a request by one of the court’s judges to reexamine how an employee’s prior salary history factors into the analysis of sex-based unequal pay claims.”

In late February, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in W.J. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a special master’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Federal Circuit appointed amicus curiae counsel to present arguments on behalf of the appellant. In an opinion by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims “that equitable tolling was not appropriate and, thus, that Appellants’ petition was not timely filed under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(2).” This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion reverses and remands a judgment if the Court of Federal Claims, finding that the court relied upon a legally erroneous construction of “surgical intervention” in addressing a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. One of the orders transfers an appeal. The other dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from the transfer order, and a link to the dismissal.

Four cases argued this month attracted amicus briefs. One was Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect Inc. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the District of Delaware that an out-of-state non-party was in contempt of court for disregarding an order requiring her to testify at a hearing. Judges Prost, Hughes, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, one precedential order, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from judgments arising out of a bench trial in the Western District of Louisiana in a patent case.  The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable for obviousness. The precedential order, which attracted amicus attention and a dissent joined by four judges, denies a sua sponte request for rehearing en banc. Two of the orders transfer cases, and one dismisses a set of appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the precedential order and transfers, and link to the dismissal.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “upheld a U.S. trade tribunal’s decision that Google’s redesigns of products . . . were sufficient to avoid infringing Sonos’ multi-room wireless audio patents”;
• a blog post highlighting how a Federal Circuit decision “offers the important conclusion that a patentee has no standing to appeal an invalidity holding once the patent expires, absent some showing of likely infringement during the prior six years”; and
• an article about an argument before the Federal Circuit that a “more than $600 million judgment against NortonLifeLock for infringing Columbia University patents. . . is ‘indefensible’ and cannot stand.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which attracted two amicus briefs, addresses an appeal from a final judgment of a district court holding certain patent claims invalid as obvious. Judge Cunningham filed an opinion dissenting in part. One of the nonprecedential opinions affirms four final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, determining all claims are unpatentable over asserted prior art. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protections Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders transfer appeals to other United States appellate courts. Four of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer orders, and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a veterans case and a pro se case. Additionally, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case, and a reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential dismissals. One of the opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which denied an early effective date for disability compensation. The other opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied a request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.