FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released seven nonprecedential opinions. Four come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; one comes in response to a petition for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; one comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of California; and one comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one petition for initial en banc hearing was granted in a case decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board raising questions related to the President’s Article II removal power. Three new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to burden of proving unpatentability in inter partes review proceedings, obviousness, enablement, and written description. One new response brief was filed in a case raising questions related to the domestic industry requirement. Finally, one petition was denied in a case raising a question related to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. Two of the opinions come in takings cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the summary affirmance.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new responses were filed. One responds to a petition raising questions related to infringement and claim construction in design patent cases. The other responds to a petition raising a question related to admissibility of expert testimony. Two new amicus briefs were also filed supporting a petition raising questions related to the domestic industry requirement at the International Trade Commission. Finally, the court denied two petitions in cases raising questions related to obviousness, apportionment, and eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, five new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to correction of inventorship, damages, the domestic industry requirement, and infringement. Three new amicus briefs were also filed in a case raising questions related to design patent infringement. Finally, four petitions were denied in cases raising questions related to eligibility and infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight two recent opinions and one recent order, four newly identified cases, and two recent oral arguments. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, there has been no new activity since our last update. As for pending petitions, since our last update, one new petition was filed in a veterans benefits case; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36; a brief in opposition was filed in a government contracts case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a patent case, a trademark case, and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a piece outlining factors “behind the Patent Office head’s recent refusal to have the agency institute certain proceedings”;
• an article discussing two recent decisions that “show how parties can navigate the draconian effect of an exclusion order by pursuing the simultaneous paths of a Federal Circuit appeal and ancillary proceedings” at the International Trade Commission and before U.S. Customs & Border Protection “to adjudicate a design-around”;
• a blog post highlighting how a recent filing “shines a spotlight on a structural vulnerability in how post-grant review is functioning in practice”; and
• an article examining “the Federal Circuit’s evolving view of two key trade secrets issues: (1) whether information was readily ascertainable and therefore not a trade secret; and (2) how and when plaintiffs must sufficiently define their trade secrets.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, seven amicus briefs were filed supporting the respondent. As for pending petitions, since our last update, five new petitions were filed in a patent case, another patent case addressing sanctions, a veterans disability benefits case, a government contracts case, and a pro se case; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and two pro se cases; a reply brief was filed in trademark case; two amicus briefs were filed in a patent case and Trade Act case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a patent case and two 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. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, the respondent’s merits brief was filed. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a case addressing sanctions and two pro se cases. Here are the details.