FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a reply brief was filed in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to pending petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a veterans case and in a pro se case, and a waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case addressing both joinder in inter partes review proceedings and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Additionally, a brief in opposition was filed in a Tucker Act case and two reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in two different cases, one in a trade case presenting questions related to separation of powers and steel tariffs and one in a patent case addressing joint inventorship. Finally, the Court denied petitions in one patent case and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which earned a dissent from Judge Reyna, addresses an appeal of a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelling registration of a trademark. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of noninfringement of a patent by a district court, while the other addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court dismissing a patent infringement claim due to claim preclusion. Two of the orders transfer cases, one denies a motion for writs of mandamus for various relief, and three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from orders, and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include an en banc response brief filed in the only pending en banc case, which addresses the non-obviousness requirement for design patents, and two newly filed petitions for rehearing in two utility patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Board of Veterans Appeals. The order grants a motion to dismiss. Here is the introduction to the opinion and link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential orders. One precedential opinion comes in a patent case and addresses issues of obviousness, infringement, and damages. The other precedential opinion comes in another patent case and addresses a challenge to analogous art findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable. The orders dismiss appeals. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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 about Judge Newman’s comment that “it’s time to reevaluate the America Invents Act, the landmark 2011 law that created new procedures for filing and challenging patents”;
• an article commenting on how Judge Newman “is considering an invitation to sit by designation in district court and oversee a trial after nearly four decades as an appellate judge”; and
• a blog post discussing “[t]he Federal Circuit’s new Finjan decision . . . focus[ing] attention on … patent law’s . . . ‘indefinite article shuffle.’”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which inspired an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, vacates a district court’s judgment of invalidity in a patent case. One nonprecedential opinion addresses subject matter jurisdiction; another addresses an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding certain claims unpatentable as obvious or as anticipated; and the third also addresses a patent appeal regarding obviousness. One order grants a motion to remand a case to the Merit Systems Protection Board, two orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus, and one order transfers an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Finally, two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from orders, 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 Judge Newman’s response to her suspension from serving on the bench, specifically that “she’s prepared to fight the decision for as long as it takes”;
• an article about the “oral arguments in . . . an appeal following the massive $2.175 billion damages verdict handed by a Western Texas jury in March 2021 to VLSI for Intel’s infringement of two computer processor patents”; and
• a blog post commenting on an opinion providing “useful guidance for [patent] prosecutors on motivation to combine and means-plus-function claims.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and one nonprecedential Rule 36 summary affirmance. The opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims regarding a government procurement contract. One order grants a motion to withdraw a petition for review, and the two remaining orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order granting the motion, and links to the dismissals and summary affirmance.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the government’s reply brief was filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case, a waiver of right to respond was filed in another pro se case, and a brief in opposition was filed in response to a petition asking the Court to consider whether the deadline to file a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in two employment cases, two veterans cases, a patent case, and a pro se case, and the Court also dismissed the petitions in four pro se cases. Here are the details.