This morning the Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions.
This week (and Tuesday of next week) the Federal Circuit will hold 16 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 56 cases. Amicus briefs were filed, however, in only one of these cases. That case, National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States, has drawn attention because it is a challenge to the user fees charged by the federal judiciary for access to court records via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. Notably, it has attracted five amicus briefs filed by a combined 51 third parties including various companies, media organizations, library associations, non-profit advocacy organizations, retired federal judges, and a retired U.S. senator.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a veterans case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases vacating and remanding in view of Arthrex, and two nonprecedential orders in related patent cases denying petitions for writs of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights Apple and Broadcom’s plans to appeal a $1.1 billion jury verdict against them in a patent case, concerns about a recent Federal Circuit decision on design patents, a story of challenges faced by a patent owner at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit, and an oral argument at the court deemed the “oral argument of the week.”
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions in three cases raising questions related to transfer motions, licenses, and the constitutionality of the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges, two responses to petitions raising questions related to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and the constitutionality of the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges, and the denial of a motion for en banc reconsideration in a case that raised arguments related to the constitutionality of the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges. Here are the details.