FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case addressing the court’s appellate jurisdiction. The court also released a related order transferring the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

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

• an article about AI-generated content and its interaction with copyright law;
• an article covering various attorneys’ reactions to the news that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “Director Kathi Vidal would take on an expanded role overseeing patent validity disputes”; and
• a blog post about how the “Alliance of U.S. Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) published a White Paper” showing how “some high-profile Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cases might have played out if the” PREVAIL Act’s “provisions had already been in force.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in DiMasi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a pro se vaccine case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal and to present oral argument. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Prost and Moore, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. This is our opinion summary.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

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 three opinions, two in takings cases and one in a vaccine case, and a summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. We also highlight reply brief in a patent case and oral arguments in two cases, a patent case and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

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

• an article providing a midyear report on “the most notable trademark decisions so far this year”;
• an article about the effects of a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in a trademark case dealing with tacking;
• a blog post summarizing takeaways from a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in a patent case addressing enablement, written description, and anticipation; and
• a blog post discussing the America Invents Act of 2011 and how it has allegedly given the Chinese government “a lethal tool for snuffing out the business interests of competitive American firms.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case holding that a failure to provide access to redacted information was a violation of due process. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released four nonprecedential orders, one granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss a cross-appeal, one dismissing an appeal as untimely, and two dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the grant of the motion to voluntarily dismiss and the dismissal for untimeliness, and links to the other dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a brief for the petitioner was filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case raising a question related to the First Amendment. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, one in a trade case and one in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released an erratum in a pro se vaccine case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. Here is the link to the erratum.