FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing attorneys for Judge Newman “urg[ing] a lower court in Washington . . . to allow her lawsuit to proceed against colleagues who suspended her from the bench last year”;
• a similar article highlighting how Judge Cooper “promised an order ‘sooner rather than later’ on what’s next for Judge Newman and the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article about a Federal Circuit ruling “that a patent suit against Honeywell International Inc. must play out on the conglomerate’s home turf of North Carolina.”

Two cases being argued this month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case being heard en banc. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and, in the process, determine whether to adopt a more flexible test for analyzing design patent obviousness compared to the existing “Rosen-Durling” test. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential orders, and one erratum. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims based on lack of standing. One order dismisses an appeal, while the other transfers a case to a district court. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissal and the erratum.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. LNW Gaming, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal from two judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method review proceedings. New Vision contended the overall structure for instituting and funding post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act “creates impermissible incentives for the PTAB, its leadership, and the individual administrative patent judges.” These incentives, New Vision argued, violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. New Vision also argued the “petitions should have been denied pursuant to the contractual obligation that all disputes over the [relevant] agreement are to be resolved in a Nevada court.” Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna heard the argument This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders. One remands appeals to the Court of International Trade. One grants a petition for a writ of mandamus, while another denies a similar petition. Two are dismissals. Here are the links to the dismissals and selected text from the remaining orders.

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

• a blog post discussing a recently filed petition for a writ of certiorari of a “May 2023 decision by the Federal Circuit that invalidated claims . . . covering method of treating Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder”;
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling “that a Georgia inventor’s car remote-starter patent that his company alleges was infringed by BMW AG is invalid in light of two previously published inventions”; and
• an article about how the Federal Circuit “denied Charles Bertini’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to decide his trademark cancellation case against Apple, Inc.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders. Two transfer cases to district courts, one transfers a case to another federal appellate court, and another remands a case to the Court of International Trade. The fifth order dismisses an appeal. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders, each dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the transfer and remand orders 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, five amicus briefs were submitted in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a veterans case and a patent case, and four waivers of right to respond were filed in four pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One order transfers a case, and the others are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and transfer order and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition for rehearing in a patent case concerning inter partes review proceedings and prior art. Here are the details.