FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order sua sponte granting en banc review of an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. In the order, the Federal Circuit requests new briefing related to the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on the interpretation of statutory provisions governing actions of the Office of Personnel Management. Notably, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruled Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which required courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous language in statutes meant for implementation by those agencies. Here is the introduction to the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in one of the two pending en banc cases. With respect to pending petitions, two new petitions have been filed and the court denied one petition. One of the new petitions raises a question regarding claim construction; the other new petition raises a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can be the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. The petition that was denied raised a question regarding apportionment of damages for patent infringement. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes an appeal from a decision of the International Trade Commission. Of the nonprecedential orders, three transfer cases and two dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and 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 reporting how last week in a “rare en banc” oral argument “Google LLC urged ten Federal Circuit judges to wipe out a $20 million Texas patent verdict over smart thermostats, arguing the jury shouldn’t have heard an expert witness’ description of settlements the plaintiff reached with three companies”;
• a blog post explaining how in a recent trademark opinion the Federal Circuit “clarified that terms once considered generic do not necessarily remain permanently unregistrable”;
• a piece claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again”; and
• a report explaining how recently a “patent owner has told the U.S. Supreme Court that there’s momentum behind its push for scrutiny of the Federal Circuit’s one-word orders in patent cases and its challenge to courts’ summary judgment practices in such matters.”

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential opinions. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Northern District of West Virginia. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in a case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the other comes in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bufkin v. Collins, a veterans case. In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the Veterans Court did not err by “tak[ing] due account” of the Department of Veterans Affair’s application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule and applying a clear error standard of review for factual issues. In a decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s ruling. The Court held that the Veterans Court reviews the VA’s application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule by reviewing legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error, and that the VA’s determination that the evidence is in approximate balance is a predominantly factual determination reviewed only for clear error. Notably, Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch. This is our opinion summary.

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit yesterday reheard a case “asking it to restrict the kinds of evidence expert witnesses can describe to juries while litigants argue over patent-infringement damages”;
• a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “highlights a significant divergence between the evidentiary standards for proving prior art status in district court litigation versus [American Invents Act] trials”;
• a piece claiming “a considerable difference of opinion between the [Federal Circuit] and [International Trade Commission] regarding interpretation and performance of [licensing] declarations” submitted to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
• a report explaining how John Squires, “Goldman Sachs’ former longtime chief intellectual property counsel,” has been nominated “to serve as the next U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, two summary affirmances, and one errata. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in patent cases and the other comes in a government contract case. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances, order, and errata.

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 issued an opinion in Bufkin v. Collins, a veterans case. Additionally, an opening merits brief and three amicus briefs in support of the petitioner were submitted in Soto v. United States, another veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, and two new petitions were filed in pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; two replies in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and a case related to Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two amicus briefs were filed in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in a patent case, a trade case, and a pro se case. Here are the details.