FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. Four of the opinions come in patent cases, including two appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The fifth opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, while the sixth opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Five of the orders dismiss appeals while two transfer cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders transferring cases and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, three response briefs have been filed by parties opposing President Trump’s tariffs along with two amicus briefs in favor of the Federal Circuit’s judgment. Three new petitions have also been filed: one comes in a trademark case, another comes in a case addressing claims under the Quiet Title Act, and the third comes in a military disability retirement benefits case. Two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the same patent case, along with two amicus briefs favoring review. Two reply briefs were filed in another patent case. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected three petitions, one in a patent case and two in pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the government filed its opening brief and several amicus briefs were filed in President Trump’s tariff case. Regarding pending petitions, three new petition were filed, one in a patent case and two in pro se cases. Additionally, respondents filed waivers of the right to respond in two cases. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article highlighting how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office urged the Federal Circuit on Friday to reject allegations that its handling of policies governing Fintiv-based discretionary denials violates due process”;
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “reversed a $106 million jury verdict” in “a decision that broadens the reach of prosecution history estoppel (and thus limits doctrine of equivalents)”; and
• an article suggesting that the Federal Circuit “took an important initial step toward recalibration” when it “mandated the retrial of a $20 million damages ruling in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC.“

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal in a patent case. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit also released five additional nonprecedential opinions in two patent cases, two veterans cases, and two cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one Rule 36 judgment, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and one nonprecedential order transferring an appeal. Here are the details.

In late May, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, Google appealed a judgment decided of the Western District of Texas, which denied its motion for a new trial on damages. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case for a new trial on damages. The Federal Circuit additionally reinstated the panel opinion as to issues other than damages. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court issued an en banc opinion in a patent case. Additionally, two new en banc petitions were filed. The first raises claim construction questions and the second was filed pro se. The Federal Circuit also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to collateral estoppel, and a new response was filed in opposition to an en banc brief. One amicus brief was also filed with the Federal Circuit. Lastly, the court recently denied five petitions for en banc rehearing. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in an en banc case appealed from the Western District of Texas. Notably, Judges Reyna and Stark concurred in part and dissented in part. Today, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trademark case. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions affirming judgments, the first in a veterans case, the second in a patent case, and the third in an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court is reviewing whether a district court erred in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses,” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and devoid of connection to the patent’s incremental improvement to the art.” This is our argument recap.

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 last week in a “rare en banc” oral argument “Google LLC urged ten Federal Circuit judges to wipe out a $20 million Texas patent verdict over smart thermostats, arguing the jury shouldn’t have heard an expert witness’ description of settlements the plaintiff reached with three companies”;
• a blog post explaining how in a recent trademark opinion the Federal Circuit “clarified that terms once considered generic do not necessarily remain permanently unregistrable”;
• a piece claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again”; and
• a report explaining how recently a “patent owner has told the U.S. Supreme Court that there’s momentum behind its push for scrutiny of the Federal Circuit’s one-word orders in patent cases and its challenge to courts’ summary judgment practices in such matters.”