FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders on its website given the Labor Day holiday. Late in the day on Friday, however, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case as moot. Here is a link to the dismissal.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 10 panels to consider 54 cases. Of the 54 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 37 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, none of the cases scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here are the scheduled cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released ten nonprecedential orders. Nine of the orders were dismissals while the remaining order vacates a judgment and remands a case to the Court of Federal Claims in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Here is the introduction to this last order and links to the dismissals.

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 decision to reject Apple Inc.’s request to “expedite oral arguments in its appeal challenging” a decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission, which banned the sale of Apple Watches with a blood oxygen feature; and
• an article detailing how in a recent decision the Federal Circuit “sided with Apple Inc.,” ending a decade-long patent dispute brought by the University of Wisconsin’s patent licensing arm involving “several generations of allegedly infringing processors used in iPhones and iPads.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinions affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second affirms a judgment of the Western District of Wisconsin in a patent case. As for the nonprecedential opinions, the first comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the second in an appeal from the International Trade Commission. The five nonprecedential orders were all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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 the two cases pending at the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit, merits briefs and amicus briefs were filed. With respect to petitions, five new petitions were filed, three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed, two new waivers of the right to respond were filed, and one new amicus brief was filed. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, both of which were dismissals. Here are links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new responses to three petitions raising questions relating to the authority of the International Trade Commission, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and the use of comparable licenses to calculate damages awards. The court also received two new amicus briefs supporting a petition relating to attorney fees and invited a response to the same petition. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising issues related to design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement, the statutory experimental use exception to infringement liability, and personal jurisdiction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. It affirms a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims regarding attorneys fees. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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 legal battle between Judge Newman and “her fellow judges on the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who have tried to pressure her to step aside”;
• a blog post discussing a Federal Circuit opinion vacating an attorneys’ fees award in a patent case, an opinion authored by Western District of Texas Judge Alan Albright, who sat by designation;
• an article reporting on amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court “urging it to leave in place” a Federal Circuit decision regarding the application of the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine to patent term adjustments; and
• an article discussing a Federal Circuit opinion holding that patent law’s on-sale bar still applies to secret processes after the America Invents Act.