FedCircuitBlog

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.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit released the following announcement on its website:

For Friday, November 10, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is closed in observance of the federal holiday, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(a)(6). Our offices will reopen on Monday, November 13, 2023.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today.

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

• a blog post providing an analysis of the oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster, which “involved a provision in the federal Lanham Act that directs the Patent and Trademark Office . . . to refuse to register any mark that identifies ‘a particular living individual’”;
• an article discussing “an opinion dealing largely with how much a patent owner can rely on information and belief-based allegations rather than facts”; and
• an article calling a district court opinion “a decision based on ignorance of patent law that must be overturned.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Three of the opinions address appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fourth addresses a pro se appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The fifth affirms a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

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 Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case and, yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a veterans case. Additionally, a reply brief was filed in a Tucker Act case and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two address issues arising out of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: one addresses the jurisdiction of the lower court and the other addresses an appeal from an order of the lower court denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. The third opinion addresses an appeal from a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order that dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court received a new petition for rehearing filed in a patent case concerning a question of proper venue. Here are the details.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. The Supreme Court granted review to consider 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 preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. One precedential opinion addresses an appeal from an inter partes review final written decision in a patent case. The other precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential opinions address appeals related to decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the four orders, one transfers a case and the remaining three are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer and links to the dismissals.

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 “California software company has warned that a venue dispute it lost at the Federal Circuit . . . has opened the door ‘for improper venue to be rectified by new facts arising any time throughout litigation’”;
• an article about “more than half a dozen amicus briefs” urging the Federal Circuit “to keep the [design patent] law as is in order to avoid major disruptions”; and
• an article about the future of AI, highlighting the Federal Circuit’s holding that “AI did not qualify as a human.”