FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential dismissals. The first precedential opinion comes in a case involving allegations of infringement of numerous patents and addresses appeals from a summary judgment of infringement of a subset of claims, from a jury determination that remaining claims were not infringed, and from a determination that all asserted claims, including those infringed, were invalid. The second precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court finding certain patent claims invalid, finding certain claims infringed, and entering a damage award in excess of $6 million. The third precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The fourth precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Each of the two nonprecedential opinions affirms a judgment—one of a district court in a patent case turning on patent eligibility, another of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued a notice addressing the fact that nonelectronic filing was not possible at the court due to the nondelivery of mail from Wednesday, March 20 to Friday, March 22. The court indicated that nonelectronic filings with deadlines arising during that time will be deemed as timely filed if they were received by the court by mail on Monday, March 25. Here is the text of the notice.

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.”