FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions, one precedential opinion in a takings case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases addressing, respectively, claim construction and non-obviousness. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals, one for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and links to the other dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition presenting questions related to means-plus-function claims and a denial of a petition presenting a question related to appellate jurisdiction. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a post-grant review proceeding and addresses claim construction, written description, enablement, and motions to amend practice and procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of an inter partes review and addresses claim construction and anticipation. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released two nonprecedential orders, one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus that would order transfer, and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the dismissal.

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

• an article and a blog post about two newly introduced bills in the Senate that would reform patent laws with respect to patent eligibility and the procedures for inter partes review;
• a blog post providing information and commentary on the recently released letter and order regarding the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge; and
• an article about an ongoing case involving patents “subject to conflicting rulings on their validity, setting the stage for a race to appeal the decisions at the Federal Circuit.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trademark case. In it, the court vacated and remanded a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding whether an appellant’s trademark was likely to be confused with three other trademarks the appellee had already registered. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. In an opinon authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Prost and Taranto, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case. This is our opinion summary.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

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

• an article and a blog post providing information on the recently released letter and order regarding the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge; and
• a blog post discussing whether obviousness is a question of law or fact.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases addressing, respectively, claim construction and definiteness. 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in an employment case, and the Court denied certiorari in a veterans case and a patent case. Here are the details.