FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that claims had not been shown to be unpatentable. One nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal asking whether a district court erred in its claim construction in a patent case. The majority found that the district court did not err, while Judge Stark dissented. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a lower court’s decision to dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, the order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s practice of reversing agency decisions and patent eligibility. Two waivers of right to respond were filed, one in the patent case raising the question about reversing agency decisions and one in a pro se case. A brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the ability to review determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. An amicus brief was filed in a veterans case. And, finally, the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion reviews a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which dismissed an opposition to the registration of a character mark and design mark. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to 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 secondary considerations of non-obviousness and inconsistency between Board and district court claim constructions, along with a denial of a petition in another patent case presenting a question related to eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. Both opinions address jurisdictional issues, with one affirming a Merit Systems Protection Board dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and another dismissing an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The order grants a motion to withdraw a petition. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the withdrawal and summary affirmances.

Earlier this year the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Sun’s patent claims in an inter partes review proceeding for failure to meet the non-obviousness requirement. In an opinion by Judge Stark, joined by Judges Linn and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s judgment. In particular, the court held that the Board had “substantial evidence to conclude that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation” of success in modifying compounds as directed in Sun’s patent claims.

This morning, the Federal Circuit provided notice on its website of increased fees taking effect on December 1. The court says the new fees reflect inflationary increases to various miscellaneous court fees and additional increases to local fees. Here is the full text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion, which attracted one amicus brief, addresses two issues in a case appealed from the Court of International Trade: the President’s authority to modify safeguard measures in a trade-restrictive manner and the appropriate procedures under the Trade Act for doing so. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming an examining attorney’s refusal to register a mark. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.

This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. In this case, the Supreme Court is considering whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” This is our argument recap.

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

• an article discussing Judge Dyk’s “doubts . . . about . . . patents for non-caloric food sweeteners, suggesting the broad scope of the claims could cover thousands of unknown enzymes and might render the patent claims invalid”;
• an article exploring whether patent law’s “lead compound” rule “is in tension with other aspects of obviousness jurisprudence as set forth in decisions of the Federal Circuit itself”; and
• another article discussing the potential impact of a Fifth Circuit case on recent decisions by the Federal Circuit that “time to trial doesn’t matter much” in a motion to transfer venue.