FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and an erratum. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, one Rule 36 judgment, and four nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion reverses a judgment of the District of Delaware in a patent case, while the second grants a petition for panel rehearing in a trade case appealed the Court of International Trade. The first nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, while the second affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. All of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion addresses issues related to estoppel as a result of inter partes review. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in a patent and employment case, and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for en banc rehearing in a patent case. Notably, with respect to the order, Chief Judge Moore wrote a concurring opinion joined by Judges Newman, O’Malley, Taranto, and Chen, while Judge Prost wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Judges Dyk and Reyna. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders denying and dismissing petitions for writs of mandamus and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• Two new reply briefs were filed with the Court, the first by Comcast in Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and the second by Duke in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• The Court denied a total of three petitions this week: (1) Robles v. Wilkie, (2) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration, and (3) B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Bedgear, LLC and Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by B.E. Technology in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One amicus brief was filed with the Court in Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. by Lambeth Magnetic Structures.
• Finally, three waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in (1) Robles v. Wilkie, (2) Golden v. United States, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week in (1) Cochlear Corporation v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, (2) Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., and (3) Acer America Corporation v. Intellisoft, Ltd.
• Two briefs in response to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Rovi in Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and the second by Facebook in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.
• One reply brief was filed with the Court by Phazzer in Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
• Lastly, two waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court in Drevaleva v. United States and Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received six new petitions this week in (1) BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., (2) Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., (3) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank., (4) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al., (5) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and (6) Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
• In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast submitted its reply to the ITC’s brief in opposition.
• Finally, the State of Indiana submitted identical amicus briefs in favor of the petitioners in both Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• Two new petitions were docketed by the Supreme Court this week. Those cases were B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Facebook, Inc. and Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
• The Supreme Court received four separate replies for the following petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Baley v. United States, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., and (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
• Finally, two new amicus briefs were submitted to the Court this week. The first by the Center for Auto Safety in Callan Campbell v. United States and the second by ACT | The App Association in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions related to waiver of the prevailing arguments made in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., non-obviousness, and argument-type prosecution history estoppel, two letters filed by the government in response to arguments related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two amicus briefs in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. itself, and the denial of four petitions. We have the details.

Next week is argument week, and three cases slated to be argued attracted amicus briefs. The first is Dragon Intellectual Property v. Dish Network LLC, a patent case that drew interest from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on the issue of the district court’s prevailing party determination, a prerequisite for attorney fee awards. Here is our argument preview.