FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and involving the same parties. One comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the Eastern District of Texas to stay proceedings in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to inter partes review estoppel and notice required to collect damages for infringement. The court also received three new responses to petitions that raised questions related to the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding, the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order transfer, and the assignment of patents. The court received four amicus briefs in cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding, patent eligibility, and the assignment of patents. Finally, the court denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to the weight given to expert witness testimony during claim construction and the non-obviousness requirement. 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:

• a blog post detailing how in a patent case the Federal Circuit “affirmed a district court’s finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285” based on inequitable conduct;
• another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the “potential for decision maker bias to occur”;
• a report explaining the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of “a Texas federal court’s decision to clear HP and other companies . . . of infringing several printing patents” and an “attorney fee order”; and
• an article assessing how Apple “won . . . support . . . for its effort to get the Federal Circuit to rehear [a patent] ownership dispute.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with Hatch-Waxman Amendments, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s analysis of the non-obviousness requirement, and venue. The court also denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to anticipation, the evidentiary basis of an invalidity finding, and the proper standard of review of agency determinations. 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 the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, which began this week, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, however, two new petitions have been filed with the Court: one in a veterans case and one filed by a pro se petitioner. As for previously filed petitions, one brief in opposition and two waivers of right to respond were filed. Finally, the Court denied 22 petitions following its first conference of the new term. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, five new amicus brief were filed in support of the appellant. As for requests for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received four new petitions raising questions relating to patent eligibility and claim construction. The court also invited a response to a petition that raised questions concerning the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the appropriate timing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed in the Court of Federal Claims, addressing arguments that the destruction of firearms under new federal statutes constituted a government taking. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion addressing the same issue. Notably, Judge Wallach concurred only in the result in both cases. Finally, the court issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case granting a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to vacate an order transferring the case from its Austin Division to its Waco Division. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, a new brief was filed. As for requests for rehearing en banc, the court received a new petition raising a question relating to the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of non-obviousness in patent cases. The court also received an amicus brief supporting rehearing to address the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court denied petitions for rehearing in two other patent cases. 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 predicting how a recent Federal Circuit decision [will] likely provide a route for judges and plaintiffs in patent cases to circumvent an international treaty that creates hurdles when serving complaints on foreign defendants”;
• an article analyzing “the unsettled and contentions nature of [patent] infringement in the skinny-label context”; and
• an article report discussing how last week the Federal Circuit issued an order “forcing U.S. District Judge Alan Albright to move [a] patent dispute . . . from his court in Waco, Texas, . . . to Northern California.”

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

• a blog post discussing the exclusion of expert testimony related to patent damages;
• an article indicating that recent Federal Circuit opinions have created “a blueprint for companies that want to get cases moved out of the nation’s fledgling patent-dispute hotbed”; and
• a report on the outcome of one of Apple’s challenges to patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.