FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review. The court also denied a recent motion for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court denied a petition raising a question related to transfers of cases. Notably, all three of these cases involved Apple Inc. 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 cases with pending petitions, one new petition was filed by a pro se petitioner; the government filed a waiver of right to respond in another case submitted by a pro se petitioner; and another pro se petitioner submitted his reply brief. Finally, the government submitted the views of the United States in two patent cases: one raising questions about eligibility and another raising a question about standing. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed the government’s opening brief. As for pending petitions, the United States motioned for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause; the court invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations in patent claims; the court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings; and the court received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in one of the petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. 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 how the government advised the Supreme Court that a pending patent case is a “‘suitable vehicle for providing greater clarity’ on when an invention can be patented”;
• another article addressing the Federal Circuit’s “focus on using mandamus to compel transfer of cases”; and
• a third article explaining how the “Federal Circuit’s newest judge continues to hear Delaware cases” after his promotion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to remand to the Western District of Texas; one grants a motion to transfer venue; one grants a motion to remand to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; one summarily affirms; and two grant motions to dismiss. Here is text from the orders and links to the dismissals.

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 ­­means-plus-function limitations and transfers. The court also denied five petitions for rehearing raising issues including the standard for granting a motion to seal court records, choice of law, estoppel arising from inter partes review, and claim construction. 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, the petitioner filed his opening merits brief in Arellano v. McDonough, a case that raises questions regarding equitable tolling and retroactive disability benefits. As for cases with pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a veterans case; following a Supreme Court request in January, the government submitted the view of the United States in a patent case that raises a question related to the intersection of the Seventh Amendment and claim construction on appeal; and a brief in opposition was filed in an employment case concerning differential pay for federal employees serving on active duty. Finally, the Court denied petitions in three patent cases.

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

• an article discussing how a recent Federal Circuit opinion “stands as an important warning” to patent holders who send notice letters;
• another article addressing the Federal Circuit’s split in an “unusual” case concerning the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• a third article addressing a recent Federal Circuit case that “clarifies the scope of incorporation by reference” in government contracts.

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.