FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the government’s reply brief was filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case, a waiver of right to respond was filed in another pro se case, and a brief in opposition was filed in response to a petition asking the Court to consider whether the deadline to file a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in two employment cases, two veterans cases, a patent case, and a pro se case, and the Court also dismissed the petitions in four pro se 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, a merits brief and an amicus brief were filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases addressing eligibility and prosecution laches respectively and in a takings case. Additionally, waivers of right to respond were filed in the patent case addressing prosecution laches and in a pro se case, and a supplemental brief was filed with the Court in a patent case addressing eligibility. Finally, three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case addressing judicial review of determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential dismissals and one nonprecedential erratum. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecedential dismissal. Here are links to the dismissals and the erratum.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and four Rule 36 summary affirmances.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 a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing a new report on Federal Circuit Judge Newman’s health;
• another article highlighting a Supreme Court petition urging review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Personalized Media Communications v. Apple; and
• a third article about a recent decision from the Federal Circuit “affirm[ing] a Texas federal judge’s decision canceling patent claims” asserted “in lawsuits targeting dating app maker Bumble Trading LLC and several other tech firms.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one order dismissing an appeal. One precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims unpatentable as obvious. This first opinion ultimately concludes that the decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The other precedential opinion also addresses an appeal of a decision of the PTAB, this one concluding that the PTAB abused its discretion in determining that a party failed to identify a field of endeavor and thus failed to establish analogous art for purposes of an obviousness analysis. Finally, the nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal by the United States Court of Federal Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Today, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office and addresses whether a patent is unpatentable as anticipated by, or obvious in view of, asserted prior art.  One of the nonprecedential opinions involves a pro se litigant seeking review of a final decision of the Merit System Protection Board. The second nonprecedential opinion, also litigated pro se, addresses an alleged violation of the First Amendment. The final nonprecedential opinion involves an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding the patentability of claims. The three nonprecedential orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

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

• an article discussing oral arguments at the Federal Circuit in three appeals between Masimo Corp. and Apple Inc. involving “a series of Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings that inventions described in Masimo’s patents were obvious and therefore unpatentable”;
• an article about how LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations holds the potential to make changes to the longstanding test for design patent obviousness; and
• an article analyzing the potential impact of a former soldier’s argument that the “U.S. Supreme Court [should] reverse a Federal Circuit decision that he claimed wrongly reduced his access to increased benefits Congress granted to wartime veterans.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case addressing an appeal from a summary judgment of noninfringement and another in a trademark case addressing priority and likelihood of confusion. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• an article covering reactions to the recent recommendation by a special committee of Federal Circuit judges that “Judge Pauline Newman should be disciplined for refusing to comply with orders related to an investigation into her ability to perform her duties”;
• a blog post providing an update on the special committee’s recommendation; and
• an article about how Apple has argued to the Federal Circuit that the “U.S. International Trade Commission’s holding that Apple Watch imports should be banned for infringing another company’s patents risks turning the agency into a standard patent litigation forum, rather than one meant to rein in harmful trade practices.”