FedCircuitBlog

A second case being argued in January at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Apple Inc. v. Vidal. This case concerns an allegation that a district court erred in finding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. This is our argument preview.

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

• a blog post about the Federal Circuit granting a petition for writ of mandamus to transfer claims from the Western District of Texas to the District of Colorado;
• an article about the California Institute of Technology urging the Supreme Court “not to take up a $1.1 billion patent infringement dispute between the university and Apple”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit denying a “motion to stop . . . performance of a $133 million US Navy base operations support services contract.”

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

• a blog post about the Federal Circuit “den[ying] a petition for writ of mandamus asking the Delaware district court to vacate an order to produce certain documents” related to third party funding in patent case; and
• an article about “Pfizer and BioNTech[‘s] . . . countersuit, demanding a jury trial and refuting Moderna’s claims of infringement” of patents related to COVID-19 vaccines.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing a pro se appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also released a summary affirmance and an order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the summary affirmance and dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s final written decisions determining that some but not all of the challenged claims were not unpatentable. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, two nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. The first order summarily affirms, and the second grants an unopposed motion to dismiss a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinions, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the order granting dismissal and the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit opinion that found a “Scheduling Order . . . went too far in mandating additional substantive discovery and re-briefing” in light of a pending motion to transfer;
• an article about “[t]he fourth round of a multibillion-dollar dispute between Intel and VLSI”; and
• another blog post about how Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC “has the potential of shaking up [patent law’s] disclosure doctrine.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s preliminary injunction order. The second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s removal of an employee of the Department of Defense. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment and two nonprecedential orders. One of these orders summarily affirms, and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to vacate a scheduling order and postpone fact discovery and other substantive proceedings until after consideration of a motion for transfer. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting similar relief. Notably, each order granted a petition filed by Apple Inc. The Federal Circuit also today released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a military case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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 heard arguments last week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; the California Institute of Technology waived its right to respond in a patent case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a takings case; three amicus brief were filed, two in a patent case and one in a case concerning judicial disqualification; and, finally, the Court denied a petition in a challenge to a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. 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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case raising a question related to inter partes review estoppel; a brief in opposition was submitted in another patent case raising a question related to patent eligibility; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; and two reply briefs were submitted in patent cases addressing so-called “skinny labelling” and the written description requirement. Here are the details.