FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article about a Federal Circuit panel concerning whether “patents, which relate to data compression and storage,” are too abstract; and
• another article about another “Federal Circuit panel . . . discuss[ing] when a party may look behind a legal challenger to discover the ‘real party in interest.’”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in an employment case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The en banc court held that the Office of Personnel Management to date has not adopted regulations that provide for differential pay based on COVID-19 in various workplace settings. Notably, Judge Reyna dissented in an opinion joined by Judge Newman. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order transferring a case to the Ninth Circuit and another nonprecedential order dismissing two appeals. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit reversed the Claims Court’s finding that the property interests at issue were easements. The second comes in patent case appealed from the Western District of Wisconsin. In it, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s construction of a specific term, vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to one patent, and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to another patent. The third comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of lack of eligibility. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal.

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

• an article about how “[a] Federal Circuit panel on Tuesday went in circles trying to lock down how a party can disavow part of an exhibit attached to its complaint”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit holding “raised tariffs on imports of steel derivatives such as nails and fasteners didn’t exceed the scope of the president’s authority”; and
• a third article about “[c]hipmaking giant Intel Corp. . . . settl[ing] a patent lawsuit brought by wireless technology developer ParkerVision Inc.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second opinions come in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and involve issues related to the Vaccine Act and jurisdiction, respectively. The third opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders late yesterday and this morning. One transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Illinois, and the other dismisses an appeal. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

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

• an article about how the “Federal Circuit refused . . . to rehear a challenge to a Delaware judge’s probe into the financing of patent litigation”;
• another article about “Sanofi and Regeneron on Friday urg[ing] the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Amgen’s arguments that it deserves broad patent coverage on cholesterol drugs”; and
• a blog post examining the reasons why the “Federal Circuit has ordered [Google’s] case moved out of the Western District of Texas (Waco) to the Northern District of California.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a response brief was filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a contract case; the government waived its right to respond in a patent case and a pro se case; a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in a patent case addressing inter partes review estoppel; and another reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal of the claim for lack of a cognizable property interest. The second comes in patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In it, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s denial of rehearing of two inter partes review proceedings. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied three petitions raising questions related to attorney-client privilege, anticipation, and the standard for establishing venue. Here are the details.