FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one nonprecedential erratum. The court also issued two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the erratum, and the Rule 36 judgments.

• Federal Circuit Sidesteps Notice Issue – In Iron Oak Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, the Federal Circuit limited its decision regarding notice only to Microsoft and refused to decide whether manufacturers related to Microsoft received sufficient infringement notice.
• District Court Abused Its Discretion in Granting Attorney’s Fees – An award of attorney’s fees in Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv n’ Care, Ltd. was reversed by the Federal Circuit for failing to prove infringement claims were “sufficiently meritless.”
• Chrimar Systems v. ALE USA Inc. – Charimar Systems seeks Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. ALE USA Inc.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; one precedential opinion in a veterans case; two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases; and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• One new petition for certiorari was filed in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two briefs in opposition were filed. One brief from Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp. and the other from the United States.
• The Supreme Court received a total of five amicus briefs this week. Four amicus briefs in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and one amicus brief in Callan Campbell v. United States.
• In Ford Motor Co. v. United States, Ford submitted its reply to the United States’ brief in opposition.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case.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

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition filed in a case raising questions related to standing; a new invitation for responses to petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel as well as a new amicus brief in the same case; the denial of petitions in five cases raising questions related to claim construction, persons who may petition for post-issuance review proceedings, jurisdiction, and non-obviousness; and the grant of a motion to withdraw in a case raising questions related to vitiation. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a government contract case, one in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and one in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Federal Circuit Cancels Arguments Due to Building Inaccessibility – The Federal Circuit will be closed to the public and staff through at least June 7 to accommodate for the ongoing protests.
• Section 285 Attorney’s Fees Not Available for Pure Inter Partes Review – The Federal Circuit left open the question of whether fees can be awarded in connection with an IPR proceeding that was parallel to a district court action.
• Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement and Invalidity Judgments Against Designer of Chalk Holders – The court found that a company’s toy chalk holders, resembling No. 2 pencils, did not to infringe a design patent.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a case sanctioning an attorney, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Recently the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Caquelin v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted three amicus briefs. In the opinion, a Federal Circuit panel including Judges Prost, Linn, and Taranto unanimously affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) amounted to a taking of private property. Here is a summary of the opinion.