FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case being heard by the court en banc. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and, in the process, determining whether to adopt a more flexible test for analyzing design patent obviousness compared to the existing “Rosen-Durling” test. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Two of the opinions dismiss appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The other two opinions address appeals from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found certain patent claims unpatentable. The two orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and selected text from the orders.

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

• an article highlighting the “Federal Circuit’s sua sponte order informing future litigants that evading briefing limits by incorporating much larger documents will likely result in sanctions”; and
• an article discussing how “the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment” in a case involving “technology used in Facebook’s search interface.”

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

• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s ruling in In re Chestek PLLC that the “US Patent and Trademark Office’s process for making a rule that US applications must disclose a US domicile address . . . didn’t violate federal law”; and
• an article noting how the Federal Circuit judges “split on [the] indefiniteness analysis for [an] identity theft patent.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one precedential order, one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and two errata. In the precedential opinion—which addresses an appeal from a judgment of non-infringement by a district court—the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court incorrectly construed claim terms and thus vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The precedential order admonishes counsel for attempting to incorporate by reference multiple pages of argument from a brief in another case and warns future litigants against doing the same thing. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a patent and trade dress infringement case. The three nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and precedential order and links to the dismissals and errata.

This week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in In re Chestek PLLC, a trademark case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of Chestek’s trademark application based on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. In an opinion by Judge Lourie joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit upheld the rejection of Chestek’s trademark application. In particular, the court found the “USPTO’s decision to require the address provided by all applicants to be a domicile address was . . . not arbitrary or capricious for failure to provide a reasoned justification.” This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Another precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which denied a petition for cancellation of mark’s registration. The third precedential opinion vacates and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims due to impermissible fact finding. The nonprecedential opinion reverses and remands a grant of summary judgment of noninfringment by a district court in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.  

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a merits brief was filed in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board and whether a filing deadline is jurisdictional or allows for equitable tolling. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in three other Merit Systems Protection Board cases, a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case, and an amicus brief was filed in another patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit release two nonprecedential opinions. One opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The other opinion, which includes a concurrence-in-part and dissent-in-part from Judge Schall, addresses an appeal from a district court’s final judgment of invalidity with respect to the definiteness of certain patent claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which affirmed an examiner’s refusal to register a mark for failure to comply with the domicile address requirement. The nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.