FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner filed his opening merits brief in Arellano v. McDonough, a case that raises questions regarding equitable tolling and retroactive disability benefits. As for cases with pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a veterans case; following a Supreme Court request in January, the government submitted the view of the United States in a patent case that raises a question related to the intersection of the Seventh Amendment and claim construction on appeal; and a brief in opposition was filed in an employment case concerning differential pay for federal employees serving on active duty. Finally, the Court denied petitions in three patent cases.

Last month, the court heard oral argument in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., in which Cisco appeals a finding that it infringed four patents held by Centripetal Networks, resulting in a judgement of over $2.75 billion. An amicus brief was filed by High Tech Inventors Alliance in support of Cisco. Before oral argument, the Federal Circuit issued an order limiting the scope of the oral argument to “the question whether the judgment should be vacated because the district court judge was required to recuse himself from the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 455.” Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

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 this week in George v. McDonough, a case addressing veterans law. While no new petitions have been filed, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a case concerning patent law’s enablement requirement. Additionally, two waivers of right to respond and a reply brief were filed in other patent cases. Moreover, two amicus briefs were submitted this past week: one in a patent case raising questions related to enhanced damages and one in a veterans case involving the Equal Access to Justice Act. Finally, the Court denied certiorari in two cases brought by pro se petitioners. Here are the details.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, including a case set to be argued in two weeks, the court will convene 12 panels to consider about 58 cases. Of these 58 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 41. Of these argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: one patent case, one military records case, and one veterans case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This week we are previewing three arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit. We are previewing these arguments because the underlying cases attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., in which Cisco appeals a finding that it infringed four patents held by Centripetal Networks, resulting in a judgement of over $2.75 billion. An amicus brief was filed by High Tech Inventors Alliance in support of Cisco. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in an Equal Access to Justice Act case and two in patent cases raising questions related to eligibility and enhanced damages; members of Congress filed an amicus brief in an employment law case that involves interpretation of the Reservists Pay Security Act; the government submitted a brief in opposition in a case concerning the Tucker Act and another brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the non-obviousness requirement; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied review in four cases. 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:

• an article explaining how “Zaxcom has petitioned the court for rehearing en banc, arguing that the CAFC’s precedent . . . ‘confused the law’ regarding a rebuttable presumption of nexus”;
• another article discussing how “[a] split US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that US chemical company BASF is able to be sued” for alleged infringement; and
• a blog post discussing how, “[i]n a new petition for writ of certiorari, Cisco asks for guidance on whether enhanced damages under Section 284 require ‘egregious infringement behavior’ or instead is it enough to find ‘deliberate or intentional infringement.’”

Here is this month’s update 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 three opinions: the first in a death benefit case addressing a former spouse’s annuity, the second in a patent case, and a consolidated cases regarding the Tucker Act. We also highlight reply briefs in three patent cases, and an argument recap in a patent case that attracted two amicus briefs. Here are the details.

Guest Post by Greg Reilly

For over a decade, patent litigation has been surprisingly concentrated in a single federal district court. At one time, almost half of the nation’s patent litigation occurred in small towns in eastern Texas.1 Now, 20% of patent litigation occurs before a single judge based in Waco, Texas.2 This concentration of patent litigation is not the result of the inherent characteristics of these districts but instead of the affirmative efforts of particular judges to attract patent cases to their courthouses.3 Scholarly commentary of this forum selling and patent litigation concentration, including by myself, has been largely critical.4 The primary objection is that the districts and judges competing for patent litigation improperly skew procedures in favor of the patentees who make the forum choice.5

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update the court denied a petition that raised a question related to the standard for enhanced damages. That’s it. Here are the details.