FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. Two deny writs of mandamus seeking to direct the District of Delaware to cancel hearings in patent cases concerning (1) disclosure of owners, members, and partners of nongovernmental entities that are parties before the district court and (2) disclosure of certain third-party funding arrangements in litigation before the district court. Two dismiss appeals. Here is text from the orders and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising a question related to the attorney-client privilege. The court also denied a petition in a case raising questions related to the standard for claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contracts case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. In it, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s rejection of the government’s claim that it was charged unallowable costs. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Virginia. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals.

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

• an article about the U.S. International Trade Commission finding “Apple Watches with an electrocardiogram (ECG) function infringe patents belonging to medical device maker AliveCor Inc”;
• another article about Amgen Inc.’s arguments to the Supreme Court that “patents needn’t spell out every possible iteration of an invention in order to be eligible for protection”;
• a third article about “VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corp . . . agree[ing] to end a patent dispute in Delaware”; and
• a fourth article about “[t]he Federal Circuit . . . order[ing] a California company to defend patent litigation it filed in Texas, as its competitor in optical filters is asking to have the case transferred.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and another in a government contract case. In the patent case, the Federal Circuit concluded that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a patent owner from presenting an infringement theory at trial. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders, one dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction and another granting a motion to dismiss. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and a link to the order granting the motion to dismiss.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, Amgen filed its opening merits brief in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, which concerns patent law’s enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, although no new petitions were filed with the Court, a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel, and another reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details. 

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion dismissing an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing a petition for lack of jurisdiction and an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also released another nonprecedential order granting a motion to dismiss.

A second case being argued in January at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Apple Inc. v. Vidal. This case concerns an allegation that a district court erred in finding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing a case for lack of a timely notice of appeal, a nonprecedential order reviewing a sanction of counsel, a nonprecedential order summarily affirming a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, and a summary affirmance.

Two cases being argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus brief. One of those cases is PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, a trade case. In it, PrimeSource Building Products claims the President did not act within his statutory authority by extending national security tariffs he had previously applied to steel articles to include derivatives of those articles. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of International Trade that the President exceeded his authority by issuing Proclamation 9980 outside the time limitations contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1). This is our argument preview.