FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petition for rehearing in two patent cases. One petition raise questions concerning government licenses to patents, while the other petition raises questions related to indefiniteness and claim construction. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board. We’ve been following because this case because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal because the appellant failed to prove he was an “employee” within the meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Stark heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses a dispute over the application of the Equal Pay Act and an employer’s reliance on prior compensation to justify gender pay discrepancy. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

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

• an article discussing “the latest litigant to head to the U.S. Supreme Court with complaints about the Federal Circuit’s practice of issuing one-sentence Rule 36 orders”; and
• an article about the Federal Circuit affirming a judgment that a “patented configuration for a gambling terminal ‘Tic-Tac-Fruit’ game was abstract and thus ineligible for protection.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion concerns a “seven-day trip of two transcatheter heart valve systems in and out of San Francisco”—and whether this act of “importation” was exempt from patent infringement under the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Judge Lourie dissented from the majority’s interpretation of the relevant statutory language and precedent to exempt infringement in this situation. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the denial of fees. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.  

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Frantzis v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Veteran Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. Judges Moore, Clevenger, and Chen heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. One dismisses an appeal. The other grants a motion by both parties to stay an appeal until the only patent at issue expires, at which point the Clerk of Order is directed to dismiss the appeal. Here are the links to the orders.

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

• an article discussing the denial of a petition to the Supreme Court “asking the Court to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) [obviousness] determination”; and
• an article about how the “Federal Circuit on Monday denied” a petition seeking a writ of mandamus in light of the denial of a “bid to move an infringement suit over authentication and fraud reduction patents from Texas federal court to California.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. One of the opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Another one of the opinions addresses an appeal from a summary judgment holding asserted patent claims ineligible for patenting. The remaining two opinions address appeals from judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable. The orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument next week in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board and whether a filing deadline is jurisdictional. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case, two briefs in opposition were filed in a patent case and in a veterans case, and an amicus brief was filed in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. Finally, the Court denied petitions in a pro se case and in a patent case. Here are the details.