FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post describing a petition at the Supreme Court as a battle with the Federal Circuit over “prosecution laches—and whether the doctrine even exists”;
• a blog post characterizing a Federal Circuit decision as “a masterclass in the consequences of acting as one’s own lexicographer” and “a stark reminder that definitions placed in patent specifications carry enormous weight”;
• an article reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office has “significantly expanded design patent protections with its guidance for claiming computer-generated images shown using virtual reality, holograms and similar technologies”; and
• a blog post emphasizing how the Supreme Court “left a variety of questions open” in its decision affirming the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Ligado Networks LLC v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the court considered an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Federal Claims presenting questions related to a radio license issued under the Communications Act. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Moore and Stoll, the panel affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is a link to it.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal challenging the settlement of a nationwide class action claiming the federal judiciary overcharged members of the public for access to court records. Two of the four nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases, one appealing a denial of a motion for attorney’s fees and the other examining a district court’s claim construction and exclusion of an expert. The third opinion comes in government contract case. The fourth comes in a veterans case. Of the six nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and one grants a motion for summary affirmance. The other three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first three orders and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post reporting how Judge Newman “filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court” to review her suspension from exercising judicial duties at the Federal Circuit;
• an article arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an opportunity to confront doctrinal tensions in design patent law claim construction that have lingered for decades and intensified in recent years”;
• a blog post examining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed an “Examiner’s obviousness rejection after rejecting [a] narrow construction of the claim term ‘configured for’”; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay next steps in the fight over tariff refunds for importers.”’”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the International Trade Commission in a patent case. One of the three orders transfers an appeal; another grants a motion for an extension of time to file response; and the third denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Patent and Trademark Office to vacate a decision not to institute an inter partes review proceeding. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.

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

Last week, the Federal Circuit court heard oral argument in Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US, a design patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC appeal a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Judges Dyk, Schall, and Prost heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article reporting how Judge Newman “petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to lift her suspension from hearing new cases,” which has “lasted nearly two years”;
• a blog post analyzing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an interesting question relating to damages calculation”;
• a blog post discussing how the Supreme Court’s recent denial of a petition “leaves in place the Federal Circuit’s determination that [published] U.S. patent applications are prior art as of their filing date in inter partes review . . . validity proceedings conducted under the pre-America Invents Act . . . statute; and
• an article suggesting the Patent and Trademark Office “has taken numerous notable steps” related to patent subject matter eligibility and that “these developments suggest a recalibration of the USPTO’s Section 101 approach, particularly for AI-related applications.”

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued an order in In re Intel Corporation, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Intel petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to challenge the Patent Trademark Office’s denial of its request for institution of inter partes review. In a per curiam order, a panel consisting of Judges Taranto, Mayer, and Stark denied the petition. This is our summary of the order.