FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions for rehearing in patent cases presenting questions related to patent eligibility and claim construction. 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 discussing Apple’s plan to “introduce watches without the blood oxygen monitoring feature” after the Federal Circuit “lifted a stay of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s ban on the original products”; and
• an article highlighting how “[f]our 2023 opinions concerning claim construction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit offer lessons on how patent prosecution can affect later litigation.”

The Federal Circuit sends us into the weekend with the release of four nonprecedential opinions. One opinion addresses an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims in which a motion for extension to file a notice of appeal was denied. Another opinion addresses an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding two claims unpatentable as obvious. Finally, two opinions, sharing the same named parties, address appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable as obvious. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion, which drew a dissent from Judge Reyna, reverses and remands a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelling the registration of a trademark. One nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a Veteran’s Court decision, which is ultimately dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Another nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding a claim unpatentable as obvious. Finally, another nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.

Today, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion dismisses a patent appeal as moot. One order grants a motion to remand, and the other dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from one order, and a link to the dismissal.

Today, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and six nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms the dismissal of a pro se complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but vacates an injunction the trial court imposed on the complainant. Five of the orders are dismissals, while one denies a petition seeking a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinion and denial of the petition, following by a link to the remaining orders.

Today the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contract case and a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case. The court also released two nonprecedential orders granting summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders on its website. One transfers a case to the Western District of Texas, while the other four dismiss appeals. Here are links to the orders.

For the first time since last Wednesday, the Federal Circuit released an order (albeit still no opinions) this morning on its website. It is a dismissal. Here is a link to it.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Three of the opinions address appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fourth addresses a pro se appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The fifth affirms a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.