FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here is the introduction of the opinion.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene eleven panels to consider about 48 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will hear 33 cases argued this month. Of the argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs: one a patent case case and one a veterans case. Notably, the veterans case will be heard by the en banc court. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

Next week, in an en banc session of the court, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In this case, the court will consider two issues relates to veterans law: (1) whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review a generally applicable interpretive rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs through its Adjudication Procedures Manual, and (2) whether a Federal Circuit Rule impermissibly supersedes a statute of limitations. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a first patent case and a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Inventor Group Wants To Halt All New PTAB Reviews – U.S. Inventor has filed an injunction request seeking to bar the PTAB from instituting any new patent reviews. However, unlike several tech companies who want to diminish the authority of the USPTO director to deny institution, U.S. Inventor hopes to enhance it.
• Biogen’s Patent Loss Spotlights Need to Stress Invention Novelty – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision emphasizes the need for patent applicants, particularly when seeking to patent biological drug products, to distinguish their inventions from those previously introduced to the public.
• Federal Circuit: Patent Directed to Physician to Patient Communication System Abstract, Invalid – The Federal Circuit issued an opinion earlier this month, which addressed both Section 101 patent eligibility and recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

Here’s the latest.

Consistent with last week’s announcement, today the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Updated Electronic Filing Procedures and Materials for Unrepresented Parties. In it, the court confirmed the that the previously-announced changes to the Clerk’s Office procedures are now in effect. Here is the text of today’s Notice.

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.

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Bedgear, LLC and Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by B.E. Technology in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One amicus brief was filed with the Court in Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. by Lambeth Magnetic Structures.
• Finally, three waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in (1) Robles v. Wilkie, (2) Golden v. United States, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.

Here are the details.

On Monday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, a panel of the court composed of Judges Newman, Linn, and Hughes unanimously reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict finding that the patent-in-suit was invalid as anticipated. Here is a summary of the opinion.

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