FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinion vacates a judgment of non-infringement, reverses an exclusion of testimony, and remands a patent case for further proceedings. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case in which a veteran requested a retroactive promotion. The second nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the 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 discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing expert testimony;
• an article addressing another recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the application of Supreme Court precedent on patent eligibility; and
• an article reporting on a Federal Circuit judge’s skepticism that a lower court incorrectly calculated damages in a copyright case.

In early August the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entertainment, a trademark case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. As explained by the appellants, “[i]n a two-to-one split decision, the Board held registrable a mark prominently incorporating without permission the certification mark COGNAC, holding that the mark . . . , if used for hip-hop music and production services, was not likely to cause confusion or dilution.” The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Clevenger and Hughes. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and four Rule 36 judgments. The first nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal from an order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second and third nonprecedential opinions affirm decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case, and two new replies were filed in patent cases raising questions related to notice-and-comment rulemaking and patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight four recent opinions, four new cases, new briefing in three cases, and a recent oral argument. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order voluntarily dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion affirms a district court’s judgment with respect to validity and infringement in a patent case; the nonprecedential opinion affirms a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating all claims of a patent; and today’s order also dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Today the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice. The notice proposes to amend various Federal Circuit Rules of Practice, various Practice Notes, and certain aspects of the Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rules. Notably, the court proposes adding a practice note highlighting how it “prefers that reply briefs respond to the response brief rather than repeating what is in the principal brief” and “favors reply briefs that do not use the full word length when not necessary.” It also proposes adding a new requirement regarding the table of contents for appendices, requiring the table of contents to identify how the relevant document was designated in the reviewing tribunal (such as the docket or other record number). The court has made a redline available to study the proposed changes. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court denied a petition raising issues related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

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

• an article discussing a request for rehearing of a Federal Circuit decision finding “that Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions can render patent claims invalid in later U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proceedings”; and
• an article reporting on the Federal Circuit’s opinion affirming “most aspects of an obviousness ruling issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated radio communications patent claims owned by Philips.”