FedCircuitBlog

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 cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight a disposition in a veterans case, two new patent cases that attracted amicus briefs, and a reply brief in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of New Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments. In it, the court announced it will apply the protocols it released in January 2022 to the court’s May 2022 session, but then apply new protocols beginning with the court’s June 2022 session. Notable aspects of the new protocols include the court’s refusal to entertain motions expanding attendance beyond arguing counsel and one necessary attendee, a mask mandate, and a requirement of proof of negative COVID testing after arriving in the Washington, D.C. area. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The opinion reviews the Department of Commerce’s methods for determining potential patterns of discrimination in export prices. The court also issued four nonprecedential orders this morning and yesterday dismissing cases based on voluntary dismissals, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to prosecute. Here are the introductions to the opinion and 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 heard arguments this week in George v. McDonough, a case addressing veterans law. While no new petitions have been filed, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a case concerning patent law’s enablement requirement. Additionally, two waivers of right to respond and a reply brief were filed in other patent cases. Moreover, two amicus briefs were submitted this past week: one in a patent case raising questions related to enhanced damages and one in a veterans case involving the Equal Access to Justice Act. Finally, the Court denied certiorari in two cases brought by pro se petitioners. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Stoll wrote a separate opinion in this case concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part. The second opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential orders this morning and late yesterday. The first summarily affirms a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board denying registration of a trademark, while the second grants an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss a case. Here are the introductions of the opinions and orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received four new responses to petitions raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief; the process and standard for determining indefiniteness; and the standard for granting a motion to seal court records. The court also denied two petitions raising questions related to the on sale bar and claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Both opinions review findings that claims were obvious. The first opinion affirms the Board, while the second reverses. The court also issued a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

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

• a blog post discussing whether, in the context of the Patent Act, “obviousness is a straightforward inquiry”;
• an article assessing the Federal Circuit and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s approaches to patent subject matter eligibility;
• another blog post analyzing the primary takeaways from a recent Federal Circuit patent case addressing damages; and
• another article explaining how “AT&T Corp. survived a patent infringement claim . . . after the Federal Circuit found there wasn’t sufficient evidence that the telephone service provider’s remote terminals were in locations covered by the patents.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders concerning the court’s jurisdiction over appeals from the Board of Correction for Army Records and over interlocutory appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

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

• an article explaining how “St Jude Medical will have to defend claims that its catheters infringe[d] a company’s revived patent”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “affirm[ed] — on a procedural technicality — a precedential decision of a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that granted a motion to amend claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding”; and
• yet another article assessing how “Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.‘s best hope for escaping a $42 million patent infringement verdict won by Seagen Inc. may lie in its separate administrative challenge to Seagen’s patent.”