FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing a “rare Federal Circuit en banc patent case” set for oral argument next week that “threatens” the current test for obviousness with respect to design patents; and
• an article indicating “the Federal Circuit could make the [International Trade Commission] a more appealing forum.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. That opinion affirms a district court’s summary judgment in a patent case, holding asserted claims invalid for ineligible subject matter. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Court set a date for oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in two patent cases and waivers of right to respond were filed in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court in a patent case and affirms the denial of a preliminary injunction. The other dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include an upcoming oral argument in the only pending en banc case–a design patent case–and a new petition for rehearing in another patent case presenting a question regarding the printed matter doctrine. The court also denied two petitions in other patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion vacates and remands a case after finding that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims applied an incorrect legal standard. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protections Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• an article discussing attorneys for Judge Newman “urg[ing] a lower court in Washington . . . to allow her lawsuit to proceed against colleagues who suspended her from the bench last year”;
• a similar article highlighting how Judge Cooper “promised an order ‘sooner rather than later’ on what’s next for Judge Newman and the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article about a Federal Circuit ruling “that a patent suit against Honeywell International Inc. must play out on the conglomerate’s home turf of North Carolina.”

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case being heard en banc. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and, in the process, determine whether to adopt a more flexible test for analyzing design patent obviousness compared to the existing “Rosen-Durling” test. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential orders, and one erratum. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims based on lack of standing. One order dismisses an appeal, while the other transfers a case to a district court. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissal and the erratum.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. LNW Gaming, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal from two judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method review proceedings. New Vision contended the overall structure for instituting and funding post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act “creates impermissible incentives for the PTAB, its leadership, and the individual administrative patent judges.” These incentives, New Vision argued, violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. New Vision also argued the “petitions should have been denied pursuant to the contractual obligation that all disputes over the [relevant] agreement are to be resolved in a Nevada court.” Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna heard the argument This is our argument recap.