FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit heard “arguments at law schools and courthouses around the San Francisco Bay Area this week”;
• an article highlighting “the intense debate over restoring injunctive relief for patent holders,” noting how “two different camps within the pro-strong-patent rights community have emerged”;
• an article discussing yesterday’s oral argument in a case addressing whether inter partes review proceedings may consider abandoned patent applications published after the filing date of a patent under review; and
• a blog post discussing how the Patent Office “recently terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent use of a practitioner’s signature.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, five nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in a government contract dispute and vacates a judgment and an injunction, affirms a sanctions order, and remands for further proceedings. Three of the nonprecedential orders deny petitions seeking orders to transfer or not transfer cases, while one remands an appeal with instructions that a district court consider a motion to vacate and the last order was a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the dismissal and 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 about the Federal Circuit deciding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “must take a second look at a video-streaming technology patent challenged by Netflix Inc. and Hulu LLC”;
• a blog post about the potential effects of an upcoming Supreme Court case on patents; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit decision affirming claim construction rulings by the Eastern District of Texas.

Guest Post by J. Jonas Anderson

Patent litigation is highly concentrated before a handful of district court judges. Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas is the latest high profile “patent judge,” receiving over 20% of the patent cases nationwide in 2020 and on track to surpass that figure in 2021.1 But, he is not the first judge to have such a heavy patent caseload: Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas received northward of 40% of all U.S. patent cases as recently as 2016;2 and a number of judges in the district of Delaware consistently receive a very large number of patent cases.3 While all district court judges are generalists, various judges, including Judge Albright and Judge Gilstrap have used procedural mechanisms and their courts’ assignment practices to become de facto specialists.4 Judge Albright now receives more patent cases per year (he’s on track for 926 this year) than the amount of patent appeals heard by the entire Federal Circuit (around 835 appeals).5 

Today we highlight four recent papers related to the Federal Circuit. The first, co-authored by retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, focuses on the transformation of the U.S. patent system over the past fifteen years. The second analyzes the justiciability of litigation upon the invalidation of patents. The third reviews the Federal Circuit’s patent eligibility decisions in the seven years following the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank. The fourth examines the availability of Federal Circuit decisions. Here are more details on these papers.

Guest Post by Joseph Matal and David McCombs

The Transitional Program for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Review will come to an end on September 16, 2020, after eight years. In our view, the CBM program’s brief history is a cautionary tale about the costs that are imposed on the system when the Supreme Court delays in rectifying a mistake.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights Oracle’s brief to the Supreme Court in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., an argument that eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC should be overruled, and the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in In re Google LLC that Google’s servers do not establish venue.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, issued a nonprecedential order unsealing the opinion in that case, and issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.