FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Vidal. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by a district court that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precluded judicial review of certain factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Lourie and Stoll, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. This is our opinion summary.

Here is the first of two updates this week on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve 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 a new patent case in which the court, due to a motion to expedite, heard oral argument recently. Additionally, we highlight new briefings in two patent cases as well as four recent opinions. 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 about how “the Federal Circuit . . . revived an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the Fintiv decision on discretionary denial” of petitions for inter partes review;
• an article about the Federal Circuit also “reviv[ing] a patent-infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc.” after a stipulation of non-infringement based on a district court’s claim constructions; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit opinion “determining that the PTAB required too much evidence to establish a motivation to combine prior art.”

Late yesterday and later this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. In the opinion, the court affirmed a judgment in a case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Four of the orders dismiss appeals, while one is an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and erratum.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, two of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals, Rule 36 judgments, and erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the first opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Northern District of California a case where Apple and other companies are challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s so-called Fintiv factors and, in particular, in the decision whether to institute inter partes review proceedings the role of the pendency of district-court infringement litigation involving the same patents. In the second opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware. In the third opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a judgment in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the order and Rule 36 judgment.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and nine nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the nonprecedential orders denied a petition for appellate attorney fees and costs following a Federal Circuit decision reversing and remanding a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders remand cases appealed from the Northern District of West Virginia. Finally, five of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals and erratum.

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

• an article about the Supreme Court “declin[ing] to consider an . . . argument that a ‘dangerous’ precedent will give big tech defendants a license to build inaccurate models of technology that can be used to wipe out patents asserted against them”;
• another article about a case involving the overturning of “a $308.5 million patent verdict against Apple”; and
• a third article explaining that “[a] potential import ban on the Apple Watch is still on the table.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. In the first precedential opinion, the court affirmed a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. In the second precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In two of the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit denied petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to transfer cases from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. One of the other nonprecedential orders, however, granted in part a petition for a writ of mandamus and, in particular, directed the Western District of Texas to decide a transfer motion. The last nonprecedential order dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a petition raising questions related to claim construction and another petition raising questions related to prosecution laches, and the court also invited a response to the same petition raising questions related to prosecution laches. Here are the details.