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one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; one precedential opinion in a veterans case; two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases; and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case.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.
Recent Supreme Court Activity
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.
Opinions & Orders – June 10, 2020
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.
Recent En Banc Activity
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.
Today’s Opinions & Orders – June 9, 2020
This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a government contract case, one in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and one in a patent case.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.
Recent News on the Federal Circuit
- 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.
Today’s Opinions and Orders – June 8, 2020
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.
Opinion Summary – Caquelin v. United States
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.
Today’s Opinions – June 5, 2020
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.
Recent News on the Federal Circuit
- Federal Circuit Clerk’s Office Inaccessible Amidst Protests – Due to mass protests in Washington, D.C., the Federal Circuit clerk’s office was inaccessible for both Monday and Tuesday of this week.
- ‘Pump And Dump’ Victims To Recoup Losses – The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision in Adkins v. U.S. allowing “pump and dump” victims to recoup a two million dollar loss.
- Party May Have Standing with Incorrect Patent Assignment – In Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., the Federal Circuit found a reformation to an incorrect assignment does not deprive a plaintiff of Article III standing.
Here’s the latest.