FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The court also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction and conclusion of the order and links to both Rule 36 judgments.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear a case challenging the retroactive application of inter partes reviews, a Federal Circuit decision on reprisal claims under the Whistleblower Protection Act, a lawsuit brought by Boeing to protect data in federal contracts, and a Federal Circuit decision allowing attorney fees following a settlement between parties.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a takings case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Vaccine Act case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a tax case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments during its September sitting in Washington DC. Here is a short recap of Keith Manufacturing Co. v. Butterfield, one of the argued cases we’re following. The case stands out for two reasons: the appellant did not file any reply brief, and the appellee did not make any oral argument.

This week the Federal Circuit will hold 11 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 41 cases. Notable cases include Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. EMC Corp., and Keith Manufacturing Co. v. Butterfield.

One case being argued next week involves Keith Manufacturing Co. (“Keith”) and Larry Butterfield (“Butterfield”). This case presents the issue of whether a “stipulated dismissal with prejudice functions as a ‘judgment’ under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), allowing the defendant to move for an award of attorney’s fees.”