FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and a nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Wisconsin. In it, the Federal Circuit reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remands the case. The second precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirms the denial of a request for benefits. Notably, Judge Reyna filed a concurring opinion. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a precedential order in a Vaccine Act case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In its order, the Federal Circuit identifies certain issues raised in the appeal to be addressed in new briefings. Finally, the court released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and four Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court addressed the Board’s determination that a petition for inter partes review and a reply brief were insufficient on their merits. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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.

• The Supreme Court received four new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new response briefs were filed with the Court. Two in Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC and one in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited.
• Two new amicus briefs were filed with the Court in Sellers v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the first by the National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium and the second by the Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc.
• One letter to Justice Barrett was filed with the Court by counsel for Sasso in Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Sasso, notifying Justice Barrett of a potential conflict of interest.
• Two waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions in two cases: (1) Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and (2) Wynkoop v. Department of Defense.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received seven new amicus briefs in a case that has been granted certiorari, Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• The Court received five new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new response brief was filed with the Court in Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
• In petition cases, the Court received six new amicus briefs in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, two new amicus briefs in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and one new amicus brief in Oracle America, Inc. v. United States.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Christy, Inc. v. United States.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions for writ of certiorari in Christy, Inc. v. United States, and in Wynkoop v. Department of Defense.
• One new brief in response to the petition was filed with the Court by Apple in Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC.
• One new amicus brief was filed with the Court in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC by the Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new amicus brief was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance in a case that has been granted certiorari, United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• The Court received eight new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new reply briefs were filed with the Court in the following cases: (1) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., (2) Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc., and (3) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC.
• One new amicus brief was filed in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation by Jonathan Stroud
• Three new waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in ten cases.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. This week the en banc court will hear arguments in a veterans case. Late last week a supplemental reply brief was filed in that case. As for new petitions for en banc consideration, two were filed in patent cases raising various questions related to the doctrine of equivalents, prosecution history estoppel, vitiation, reasonable royalties, and obviousness. With respect previously-filed petitions, a new response was filed asking the court to reject a petition questioning whether whether a party who is not a patentee may sue for patent infringement. In addition, the court denied four petitions in patent cases raising questions related to mandamus jurisdiction over real-party-in-interest determinations, double patenting, transfer of venue, and claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in four patent cases raising questions related to remedies, transfer of venue, novelty, non-obviousness, and real-party-in-interest rules, as well as a response to a petition raising questions related to double-patenting. Here are the details.