FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

District Court Thwarts $100 Million Damages Award, Finding Litigation Conduct Exceptional – On IPWatchDog, Gene Quinn writes about a long, drawn-out patent infringement battle that “saw action in front of a jury, at the district court, at the PTAB, at the Federal Circuit, and even . . . the Supreme Court.”

Oracle Files Yet Another JEDI Challenge with the U.S. Supreme Court – Sebastian Moss on DataCenterDynamics.com reports that the “US military appears trapped in an endless conflict with no clear winner.”

Performance-Based Actions: How Much Is Too Much? – In an article on FedSmith.com, Robbie Kunreuther reflects on a decision by the Federal Circuit concerning “unacceptable performance cases and how they should be addressed.”

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., (2) ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.
• Nine briefs were filed in response to the petition in United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC.
• Three replies were submitted to the Court, the first by BioDelivery in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., the second by Chamberlain in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., and the third by Campbell in Campbell v. United States.
• One supplemental brief was filed by Ameranth in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• Lastly, nine waivers of right to respond were submitted to the Court in three cases: (1) United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC, (2) Sanders v. United States, and (3) Michelson v. Department of the Army.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received six new petitions this week in (1) BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., (2) Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., (3) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank., (4) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al., (5) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and (6) Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
• In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast submitted its reply to the ITC’s brief in opposition.
• Finally, the State of Indiana submitted identical amicus briefs in favor of the petitioners in both Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new petition for certiorari was filed in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two briefs in opposition were filed. One brief from Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp. and the other from the United States.
• The Supreme Court received a total of five amicus briefs this week. Four amicus briefs in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and one amicus brief in Callan Campbell v. United States.
• In Ford Motor Co. v. United States, Ford submitted its reply to the United States’ brief in opposition.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Notably, much of the activity relates in some way to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. Highlights include three new petitions (including two petitions raising questions related to waiver of arguments similar to those made in Arthrex), a response in opposition to a petition also making arguments raised in Arthrex, briefing on a motion raising arguments related to Arthrex, requests for responses in three cases (including, notably, Arthrex itself), and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions, a response to a petition, and an amicus brief in support of a petition.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.