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 an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, since our last update the Court has not granted any new petitions. Two new petitions, however, have since been filed: one in a patent case concerning patent eligibility and one filed by a pro se petitioner. Additionally, Apple filed a reply in support of a petition raising a question related to standing in patent appeals. Finally, two waivers of right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases. Here are the details.
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, since our last update the Court has not granted any new petitions. Three new petitions, however, have since been filed: two in patent cases and one filed by a pro se petitioner. Additionally, a waiver of right to respond to one of the three new petitions was filed, and a brief in opposition was filed in a case that raises a question regarding Article III standing in a series of patent appeals. 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:
- a blog post detailing how in a patent case the Federal Circuit “affirmed a district court’s finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285” based on inequitable conduct;
- another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the “potential for decision maker bias to occur”;
- a report explaining the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of “a Texas federal court’s decision to clear HP and other companies . . . of infringing several printing patents” and an “attorney fee order”; and
- an article assessing how Apple “won . . . support . . . for its effort to get the Federal Circuit to rehear [a patent] ownership dispute.”
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential in a patent case appealed from the District of North Dakota and addressing exceptionality and attorneys’ fees. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
VirnetX Attacks Apple’s PTAB Win At Fed. Circ. – Andrew Karpan reported for Law360 on VirnetX’s attempt to overturn a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that if affirmed would undermine its $576 million patent infringement judgment against Apple.
Marathon, Others Defend Patent Case Fee Award at Federal Circuit – In her article on Bloomberg.com, Perry Cooper discusses a three judge panel of the Federal Circuit who “listened to arguments about a $5 million attorneys’ fee award in a fracking patent case.”
Last Week in the Federal Circuit (June 1-4): Prosecution Disclaimer – What’s Good for the Goose… – In this post on FederalCircuitry, Rachel Rice picked opinions released by the Federal Circuit that have “piqued [her] interest” to discuss.