FedCircuitBlog

Five cases being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Celanese International Corporation v. International Trade Commission. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the International Trade Commission that, under the post-America Invents Act on-sale bar provision, the sale of products made by a secret process invalidates a subsequently-filed patent application on that process. This is our argument preview.

Yesterday, the Clerk’s Office released guidance to clarify the criteria for allowable and unallowable scheduling conflicts with oral argument sessions. The guidance includes a non-dispositive and non-exhaustive list of allowable and unallowable scheduling conflicts. The guidance aims to provide helpful information regarding acceptable scheduling conflicts. Here is the text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. The opinion addresses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims relating to adverse decisions rendered under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal in a patent case after a jury trial and bench trial in the Western District of Texas. The order transfers a case to a district court. Here is the introduction to the opinion and selected text from the order.

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

• an article discussing how a “consortium of patent lawyers and small startups are sounding the alarm at the Federal Circuit over a ruling last year”; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit ruling that “Intel failed to show that Koniklijke Philips NV’s patent . . . was obvious, and thus invalid, based on several previously published inventions.”

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

• an article discussing how the Supreme Court “justices declined to review the Federal Circuit’s holding that the one-year window for filing inter partes review petitions does not apply to companies seeking to join a challenge brought by another company”; and
• an article presenting “post-argument thoughts” on the Federal Circuit’s recent “en banc oral argument to reconsider the obviousness test for design patents.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and six nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in two inter partes review proceedings. The orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introduction to the opinion and text from the orders.

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. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case, the Court requested a response to a petition in a patent case concerning obviousness, and two amicus briefs were filed in the same patent case concerning obviousness. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in three patent cases and one pro se case, and the Court dismissed the petitions in five pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecidential order. The opinion affirms a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. One of the orders dismisses an appeal, and another grants a motion to transfer a case to the Middle District of Alabama. The other three orders also dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and two of the orders and links to the three of the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions for rehearing in patent cases presenting questions related to patent eligibility and claim construction. Here are the details.