FedCircuitBlog

As we have been reporting, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is City of WIlmington, Delaware v. United States, a contract case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. In the opinion, the court affirmed a judgment appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The four nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals.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. With respect to granted cases, on Monday the Court heard oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court in three patent cases and a pro se case. The Court also denied three petitions. Here are the details. 

As we reported yesterday, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Gorge Design Group LLC v. Xuansheng, a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Gorge’s claims against NeoMagic were not frivolous and NeoMagic was not entitled to attorneys’ fees. This is our argument preview.

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

The Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in a patent case decided by the Federal Circuit, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. In this case, the Court is considering “[w]hether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three petitions, one raising questions related to subject matter eligibility and two raising questions related to the applicable test for non-obviousness of designs under design patent law. The court invited a response to the petitions raising questions related to the applicable test for non-obviousness of designs under design patent law. Finally, the court denied a petition raising a question related to claim construction. Here are the details.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued a notice of Limited CM/ECF Availability on Friday, April 7, 2023 through Sunday, April 9, 2023. In it, the court announced that the court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) will be unavailable between Friday, April 7, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern) through Sunday, April 9, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern). Here is the full text of the announcement.

Five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, a trade case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of International Trade that the “President’s authority to modify a safeguard measure under 19 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B) is limited solely to ‘trade-liberalizing’ modifications, and that Proclamation 10101 thus went beyond the President’s statutory authority.” This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. In the first order, the court granted a motion for summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the second order, the Federal Circuit granted a motion for remand in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the third order dismissed an appeal. Here is text from the first two orders and a link to the dismissal.