FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a vaccine case, one nonprecedential opinion affirming a denial of a motion to intervene, and four nonprecendential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions, one new case, three recent oral arguments, and two upcoming oral arguments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four opinions: one precedential opinion in a patent case; one precedential opinion in a takings case; and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued one Rule 36 judgement. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgement.

• Federal Circuit Hearing More Cases by Phone – The Federal Circuit will increase the number of arguments it hears via phone next month.
• Bad Conduct During Litigation Means Attorneys’ Fees Regardless of Damage Amount – The Federal Circuit disagrees with lowering an award of attorney fees based on a lesser damages award.
• COVID-19 Underscores Diagnostic Patent Eligibility Problems – What is the impact of recent judicial precedent on diagnostic methods?

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases, four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and one nonprecedential order in a patent case dismissing an appeal as moot. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

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

• New petitions were filed in (1) Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States and (2) Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States.
• In Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, the United States submitted it’s brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari.

Here are the details.

As we reported earlier today, a Federal Circuit panel this morning issued a precedential order in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. The order is important. It highlights the potential reach of the Federal Circuit’s decision earlier this year in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. Indeed, it suggests that Administrative Patent Judges are unconstitutionally appointed with respect to every aspect of their work: not just inter partes reviews, and not just inter partes reexaminations, but also everything else, including ex parte reexaminations, covered business method review, and ex parte appeals.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential order unsealing it; two precedential orders in a patent case denying panel and en banc rehearing respectively; and nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, two patent cases, and a tax case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

May the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reject a motion to amend a patent in an inter partes review because the Board concludes that a proposed substitute claim does not comply with the eligibility requirement? The Federal Circuit considered that question during an oral argument last week in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC. As discussed in our argument preview, the case attracted an amicus brief in favor of the Board’s position that it may consider eligibility in this context. Here is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Hardy v. United States. Hardy v. United States is a takings case on appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. The case concerns whether several deeds at issue granted an interest in fee simple or an easement in the disputed parcels of land.

Here is a review of the case and issues on appeal.