FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court received a petition raising a question regarding claim construction, and the court denied a petition raising questions regarding reliance on expert testimony in applying the doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, in the only pending en banc patent case, which presents a question concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses, the opening en banc brief was filed, the Federal Circuit issued an order indicating parts of the opening brief went beyond the scope of en banc rehearing, and five new amicus briefs were filed. Additionally, a new petition was filed raising questions related to reliance on expert testimony in applying the doctrine of equivalents. Finally, the court denied two petitions raising questions regarding the written description requirement, obvious-type double patenting, and attorney fees. 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 suggesting that, “although pursuit of an appeal to the Federal Circuit may under some circumstances prove to be quicker and less expensive, appeals to district courts are becoming increasingly attractive” ;
• an article discussing a recent petition in which an “owner of an invalidated background-check software patent urged the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the Federal Circuit’s suspension of 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman, whose absence on the court the company says deprived it of a potentially sympathetic ear”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision “holding that conclusory expert testimony is insufficient even for relatively simple technologies.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. Two of the precedential opinions come in patent cases. Notably, in one of these two cases Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part. The third precedential opinion affirms the dismissal of an appeal by the Merit Systems Protection Board for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an employment case, and the nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one precedential order, one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and two errata. In the precedential opinion—which addresses an appeal from a judgment of non-infringement by a district court—the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court incorrectly construed claim terms and thus vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The precedential order admonishes counsel for attempting to incorporate by reference multiple pages of argument from a brief in another case and warns future litigants against doing the same thing. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a patent and trade dress infringement case. The three nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and precedential order and links to the dismissals and errata.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal as moot. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five Rule 36 summary affirmances. The opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and three Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, this week the Court decided Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., in which the Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s approach to the assignor estoppel doctrine. Additionally, three cases were granted, vacated, and remanded based on the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. regarding application of the Appointments Clause to administrative patent judges. As for petition cases:

Here are the details.

• a reply brief was submitted in support of a petition in a government contract case;
• the government filed a waiver of right to respond in a patent case;
• the Court dismissed one petition; and
• the Court denied five petitions, including four regarding application of the Appointments Clause to administrative patent judges.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, we are still waiting for the Court to issue opinions in the two pending patent cases. As for petitions, a new petition was filed in a pro se veterans case; five petitioners filed reply briefs in cases presenting questions related to Tucker Act, patent, and takings law; one petitioner filed a motion to dismiss in a patent case; and the Court denied five petitions in cases involving patent, contracts, and veterans law.

Here are the details.