Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions related to waiver of the prevailing arguments made in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., non-obviousness, and argument-type prosecution history estoppel, two letters filed by the government in response to arguments related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two amicus briefs in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. itself, and the denial of four petitions. We have the details.
Next week is argument week, and three cases slated to be argued attracted amicus briefs. The first is Dragon Intellectual Property v. Dish Network LLC, a patent case that drew interest from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on the issue of the district court’s prevailing party determination, a prerequisite for attorney fee awards. Here is our argument preview.
Late on Friday the Federal Circuit issued two precedential orders in patent cases and one nonprecedential order in a patent case. These orders represent the immediate fall out from the Federal Circuit’s opinion late on Thursday in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that the Secretary of Commerce’s appointment of Administrative Patent Judges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (You can find this blog’s report on that decision here.) On Friday, the Federal Circuit ruled in two cases that the appellants forfeited this same challenge by not raising it in their opening briefs, but instead only in a post-briefing motion or notice of supplemental authority. In the third case, the court canceled this week’s oral argument, vacated the PTAB’s decision, and remanded the case because the appellant did raise the Appointments Clause challenge in its opening brief. Here is the text of the orders.
One type of case we track here at Fed Circuit Blog is any patent case pending before a panel where an amicus brief has been filed. Besides identifying these cases, aggregating related data (e.g., briefs, oral argument recordings, orders, and opinions), and making this data available using our “Other Cases” page, once a month we plan to provide a blog post summarizing recent activity in these cases. Today we do that with respect to eight such patent cases. Of these cases, three concern the non-obviousness requirement; two include jurisdictional questions; one pertains to infringement; one discusses F/RAND commitments; and one raises the issue of patent eligibility.
Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, one nonprecedential order denying mandamus in a patent case, one erratum, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of Rule 36 judgments.