FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two denials of petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases. 

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 “trio of amicus briefs Thursday threw support behind a cert petition filed last month” seeking to reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Vidal, a patent case.
• an article highlighting Federal Circuit Judge Newman’s appearance at a “conference on Friday to urge more scrutiny into how patent law could affect the development of vaccines and other groundbreaking technologies”; and
• an article noting how amicus briefs were recently filed at the Supreme Court in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The opinion addressed an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding a disputed charge of insubordination. The five orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential dismissals and one nonprecedential erratum. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecedential dismissal. Here are links to the dismissals and the erratum.

Today, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion vacates a non-infringement judgment in a patent case and remands for further proceedings. Interestingly, the Federal Circuit previously vacated a summary judgment of infringement in the same case. The nonprecedential orders each grant unopposed motions for voluntary dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the 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 highlighting how a “former Federal Circuit Judge predicts shake-up on” the Federal Circuit;
• an article discussing “the pending ‘Vidal v. Elster‘ Supreme Court case and whether a provision of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment by barring registration of a trademark that contains criticism of a government official or public figure”; and
• an article analyzing a petition to the Supreme Court arguing that “the Federal Circuit failed to use the Supreme Court’s two-step” test for patent eligibility in ChromaDex Inc. v. Elysium Health Inc.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions. Three opinions address appeals from patent cases—two from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one from the District of Delaware. The additional two opinions address decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case, the government filed its merits brief. In addition, the Court set dates for oral arguments in both Rudisill v. McDonough and Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. As for pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case. Additionally, the government waived its right to respond in one veterans case and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

Today, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Two dismissals were agreed upon by the parties, while one dismissal resulted from an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss a cross appeal. Here are links to the dismissals.

Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Darby Development Co. v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims to grant the government’s motion to dismiss physical takings and illegal exaction claims. These claims relate to the Center for Disease Control’s eviction moratorium enacted during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Judges Dyk, Prost, and Stoll heard the parties’ arguments. This is our argument recap.