FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. In the first precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the second precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the International Trade Commission. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas in a patent case with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed another judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Again, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jenkins v. United States, a takings case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Jenkins was not entitled to compensation for the loss of his vehicles seized during a criminal investigation. This is our argument preview.

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

• an article about a Supreme Court petition asking the Court “to weigh whether former Commissioner of Patents . . . had the power to reject a request for director review”;
• another article about another petition filed with the Supreme Court asking it “to review a Federal Circuit decision affirming the partial invalidation of a footwear stitching patent challenged by rival Adidas AG”; and
• a blog post commenting on “AI tools creating inventive output.”

One of the five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief is Dixon v. United States, a tax case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss Dixon’s “assessed additional income tax claim” for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and in the alternative for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is City of WIlmington, Delaware v. United States, a contract case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. In the opinion, the court affirmed a judgment appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The four nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion 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, on Monday the Court heard oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court in three patent cases and a pro se case. The Court also denied three petitions. Here are the details. 

As we reported yesterday, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Gorge Design Group LLC v. Xuansheng, a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Gorge’s claims against NeoMagic were not frivolous and NeoMagic was not entitled to attorneys’ fees. This is our argument preview.

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

The Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in a patent case decided by the Federal Circuit, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. In this case, the Court is considering “[w]hether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” This is our argument recap.