FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, three new petitions were filed raising questions related to procedure and eligibility, the written description requirement, and sanctions. The court also lifted a stay on a case raising questions about the doctrine of equivalents. Finally, the court denied a petition for rehearing raising a question about claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently issued an opinion “affirming a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that granted Google LLC and YouTube LLC judgment on the pleadings on patent ineligibility grounds”;
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit recently held that the “Patent Trial and Appeal Board was right to fully invalidate a speech recognition patent that Apple stands accused of infringing”;
• an article noting how the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal because “the 30-day deadline of 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) for filing a notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ with no equitable exceptions”; and
• an article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently “reversed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal” of a Presidential Innovation Fellow’s “whistleblower appeal . . . , finding he had made sufficient allegations of gross mismanagement to establish jurisdiction.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed in a case raising questions about claim construction. The court also denied three petitions in cases that raised questions about inter partes review petitions, claim construction, and eligibility. Here are the details.

Late Friday afternoon, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion concerning a pro se appeal from the Court of Federal Claims and four nonprecedential orders dismissing three appeals and a petition. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. Today’s opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois. As for today’s orders, one grants a motion to remand a case while the others are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the orders.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Notably, Judge Subramanian, sitting by designation, dissented. Another of the nonprecedential opinions comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; one comes in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims; and one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions along with links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new briefs filed in the only pending en banc case, which relates to the President’s Article II removal powers. As for pending petitions, four new petitions were filed in cases raising questions relating to claim construction, appellate procedure, and petitions for inter partes review. The court also denied one petition raising issues regarding claim construction and appellate procedure. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a case involving sanctions appealed form the Central District of Illinois, and the other opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. One of the nonprecedential orders summarily affirms an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in response to a patent case appealed form the International Trade Commission, two come in response to petitions to review final decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than dismissals, as well as links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus. The precedential opinion comes in a trade case on appeal from the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case addressing eligibility on appeal from a district court. Of the denials of petitions, three relate to petitions seeking to order the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to vacate non-institution decisions on petitions for inter partes review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders denying petitions, along with links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released nonprecedential opinions in three other patent cases, two in cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one in a case appealed from the Southern District of Ohio. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions, along with 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 petitions, the petitioner filed his reply brief in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a government contract case; a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a takings case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in the same takings case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five pro se cases. Here are the details.