FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petition cases, six waivers of right to respond were submitted; two briefs in opposition were filed, one in an Equal Access to Justice Act case and one in a patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in three cases, two in patent cases and one in an employment case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petition cases, three new petitions were filed with the Court; a reply brief was filed in a case raising questions related to patent eligibility; and four supplemental briefs were submitted in three patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The opinion addresses issues related to the jurisdiction of the MSPB. The court also issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.  

VirnetX Attacks Apple’s PTAB Win At Fed. Circ. – Andrew Karpan reported for Law360 on VirnetX’s attempt to overturn a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that if affirmed would undermine its $576 million patent infringement judgment against Apple.

Marathon, Others Defend Patent Case Fee Award at Federal Circuit – In her article on Bloomberg.com, Perry Cooper discusses a three judge panel of the Federal Circuit who “listened to arguments about a $5 million attorneys’ fee award in a fracking patent case.”

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (June 1-4): Prosecution Disclaimer – What’s Good for the Goose… – In this post on FederalCircuitry, Rachel Rice picked opinions released by the Federal Circuit that have “piqued [her] interest” to discuss.

Fed. Circ. Won’t Make Albright Rebuke Precedential – Adam Lidgett on Law360 reported on how the Federal Circuit stated it will not “reissue as precedential a March decision rebuking Judge Alan Albright for repeatedly failing to rule on transfer motions in a timely manner.”

After Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, it Might Be Time to Pay Attention to Prosecution Laches – Kate Gaudry recently posted on IPWatchDog.com about the repercussions of Hyatt v. Hirshfeld and prosecution laches for attorneys.

Amazon, Macy’s, Dell, Others Free From Patent Infringement Suit – Perry Cooper, a legal reporter for BloombergLaw.com, reported on the aftermath of a recent decision made by the Federal Circuit in SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com.

Here is the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions: one affirming a district court in a patent case and one affirming the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. New petitions were filed in two patent cases raising questions related to claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents. The court also denied seven petitions in patent cases raising questions related to Rule 36 judgments, injunctive relief, claim construction, awards of attorneys’ fees, eligible subject matter, deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, standing, inter partes review, and enablement. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided In re VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Moore authored a unanimous panel opinion denying VoIP-Pal’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The panel found that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by declining to dismiss the case based on the first-to-file rule. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Telephonic oral argument is scheduled next week in an en banc veterans case, Arellano v. Wilkie. As for patent cases, petitions were filed in four cases raising questions related to an award of attorney’s fees, eligible subject matter, deference to findings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and standing. In addition, a new response was filed arguing against the grant of a petition raising questions related to injunctive relief. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions: two concerning appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a veterans case, and one in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.