FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s preliminary injunction order. The second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s removal of an employee of the Department of Defense. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment and two nonprecedential orders. One of these orders summarily affirms, and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to vacate a scheduling order and postpone fact discovery and other substantive proceedings until after consideration of a motion for transfer. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting similar relief. Notably, each order granted a petition filed by Apple Inc. The Federal Circuit also today released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a military case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; the California Institute of Technology waived its right to respond in a patent case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a takings case; three amicus brief were filed, two in a patent case and one in a case concerning judicial disqualification; and, finally, the Court denied a petition in a challenge to a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case raising a question related to inter partes review estoppel; a brief in opposition was submitted in another patent case raising a question related to patent eligibility; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; and two reply briefs were submitted in patent cases addressing so-called “skinny labelling” and the written description 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 first article concerning “the importance of adhering to local rules on initial disclosures in Delaware” after the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent case;
• a second article about Apple potentially escaping a $576 million judgment against it in a patent case; and
• a third article discussing the Federal Circuit’s reopening to the public yesterday.

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 “plunge by nearly one-fifth” of patent related filings in Texas federal courts;
• another article about whether the Federal Circuit considers research tools to be covered by safe harbor provisions in the Hatch Waxman Act; and
• a blog post about personal jurisdiction in patent infringement cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia; the second comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; and the third comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, in the trade case, Judge Newman dissented. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, the District of South Carolina, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, respectively. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, a link to the dismissal, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• an article discussing Moderna’s claim “that Pfizer and BioNTech unlawfully copied Moderna’s inventions”;
• an article summarizing the Federal Circuit recent ruling “that ‘plain meaning’ [of patent claims] cannot be interpreted in a vacuum”; and
• a third article highlighting the Federal Circuit’s decision to allow Apple and several other tech companies to “continue to import and sell their smartphone devices.”

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 Fifth Circuit “said it would ‘continue to disagree with the Federal Circuit’ over whether it has appellate jurisdiction over” appeals of Walker Process patent fraud cases;
• a blog post highlighting how patent law’s “defense of assignor estoppel has been in flux”; and
• a third article detailing how Koss Corp. is “vying to save one of its patents for wireless earphones and headphones that has been at the center of its infringement suits against Apple Inc. over its AirPods wireless earbuds.”

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 a question related to the ability of a Federal Circuit panel to nullify or render advisory an earlier judgment of the court. The court also received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in a case raising questions related to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the grounds for inter partes review. Finally, the court denied a petition in a case raising questions related to the court’s grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus to order transfer of a case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Here are the details.