FedCircuitBlog

Four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is In re Blaze Mobile, Inc., a patent case. In this case, Blaze Mobile, Inc. appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming an examiner’s rejection of every claim in a patent during an ex parte reexamination. This case presents questions related to claim construction and non-obviousness. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. Two of the opinions come in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the third comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. As for today’s orders, one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus in a case addressing veterans law, one dismisses a case for lack of jurisdiction, one grants an agreed motion to dismiss, and one transfers an employment discrimination case to the Eastern District of Texas. Here are the introductions to the opinions and substantive orders, along with a link to the agreed dismissal.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted 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 one opinion in a takings case presenting questions of railroad easements; an argument recap in a taking case; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related to anticipation and obviousness as well as infringement and injunctive relief; and two new amicus briefs in the patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief. Finally, we highlight four upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. As for today’s orders: two deny petitions for writs of mandamus, one directed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the other to the Merit Systems Protection Board; one grants a motion for summary affirmance; one dismisses an appeal as untimely; and one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.

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

• an article commenting on how a recent “verdict serves as a reminder of a fundamental reality in patent litigation: When a patented feature — even one representing only a small portion of the overall product — is incorporated into hundreds of millions or billions of units, it can create enormous financial exposure”; and
• an article highlighting how this week “the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list that included a denial of Google’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s . . . development of the ‘settled expectations’ doctrine at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, both dismissing cases. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. As for today’s orders, one denies petitions for writs of mandamus in a patent case, one dismisses an appeal subject to reinstatement if a licensed attorney appears on behalf of the appellant and moves for reconsideration of the dismissal, and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to today’s opinions and substantive orders, along with links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, since our last update, five new petitions were filed in a patent case, a case arising under the Tucker Act, a case originally arising under the Indian Tucker Act, and two pro se cases; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a case involving copyright and government contract claims and a pro se case; two briefs in opposition were filed in patent cases; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases; and the Court denied five petitions. Here are the details.

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

• an article reporting how the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday “refused to take up a case in which Google argued that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has exceeded its authority by using the age of patents as a reason to refuse to review them”;
• a blog post highlighting how “eligibility is again about a fifth of the PTAB’s appeal docket . . . and the Board has nearly stopped raising Section 101 ‘new grounds of rejection’”;
• a blog post announcing how the publication of “Unfettered Invention: How the X Patents Sparked Early American Technology”; and
• an article noting how a recent motion in a patent case argued a “presentation of legal opinions” by retired judge Kathleen O’Malley of the Federal Circuit “was inappropriate.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the other comes in a government contract and takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to today’s opinions, along with a link to yesterday’s dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.