FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Last week, the court granted en banc rehearing in a patent case addressing the applicable test for non-obviousness of designs under design patent law. The court also filed an order holding another related patent case in abeyance pending the en banc review of the granted case. Here are the details.

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

Two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the inter partes review petitioner “has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” Notably, in this case, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries was substituted for Concert Pharmaceuticals as the appellant to reflect a recent merger. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit granted LKQ Corporation’s petition for rehearing en banc in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case addressing obviousness. In its petition, LKQ asked the en banc court to review two questions related to obviousness in the context of design patents. In its order granting en banc rehearing,the Federal Circuit ordered the parties to address several related questions in supplemental briefs. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order granting a petition for en banc rehearing in a design patent case addressing obviousness. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and two in related pro se cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the order and opinions.

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

• an article summarizing a recent interview with Judge Newman regarding the ongoing investigation into her fitness to serve as a judge;
• a blog post featuring opinions on two recently introduced bills that would reform patent laws with respect to patent eligibility and the procedures for inter partes review and post grant review proceedings;
• an article providing an overview of inter partes review and post grant review petitions and their resolution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit; and
• an article about “broad changes” the Federal Circuit has recently signaled regarding “jurisdictional issues in bid protests and Contract Disputes Act claims.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case addressing the framework for how the Department of Veterans Affairs performs disability ratings by analogy. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case raising a question related to GI Bill educational assistance. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, one in a patent and one in a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

Monday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court will review whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions, one precedential opinion in a takings case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases addressing, respectively, claim construction and non-obviousness. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals, one for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and links to the other dismissals.