FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition in a patent case raising a question concerning prior art for purposes of design patent law and two denials of petitions in two other patent cases raising questions related to the law governing reissue proceedings and fee shifting, respectively. Here are the details.

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This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the opinions comes in a patent case addressing an appeal from eight final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Another of the opinions dismisses for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The final two opinions address appeals from the same pro se plaintiff from judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in George v. McDonough. With respect to petition cases, four new petitions were filed with the Court; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a veterans case brought by a pro se petitioner; three amicus brief were filed in another veterans case raising a question about the standard of proof for disability claims; and the Court denied two petitions, one in a patent case and one in a pro se case. Notably, in the patent case the petitioner presented the same two questions presented to the Court in American Axle & Mfg, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC. 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.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, six amicus briefs were filed in a veterans case in support of the petitioner. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case concerning alleged fraud on the court and a pro se veteran’s case; a waiver of a right to respond was filed in the patent case; another waiver of a right to respond was filed in a veterans case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case concerning eligibility; and a petitioner filed a reply in support of a petition in another patent case raising questions about eligibility. 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, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in a patent case, one filed by a pro se petitioner in a veterans case, and one by another pro se petitioner in an employment case. Additionally, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case raising questions concerning patent eligibility; a brief in opposition was filed in another patent eligibility case; a waiver of a right to respond was filed in a patent case concerning standing; and a petitioner filed a reply in a case raising a question about the Chevron doctrine’s applicability in veterans cases. Finally, the Court denied three petitions: two in takings cases and one in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. This week, the Supreme Court set a date for oral argument in a veterans case that raises questions regarding the scope of clear and unmistakable error. As for still pending petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case raising questions related to patent eligibility; one brief in opposition was filed in another patent case raising questions related to enablement; and one reply in support of a petition was submitted in a government contract case. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article detailing how “[a] South Korean nutritional supplement company correctly lost its BF-7 trademark registration”;
• another article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit has refused to revive Polycom Inc.’s attempt to undo part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision”;
• a blog post assessing how “‘[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction’”; and
• yet another article discussing how the Federal Circuit has recently provided “an important new data point in the evolving timeliness rules for bid protests filed with the Court of Federal Claims.”

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.