FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions, one summary affirmance, and four orders dismissing appeals. The nonprecedential opinions affirm a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing a pro se case for lack of jurisdiction, a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming a dismissal by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. In it, the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade’s determination that raised tariffs on steel imports were unauthorized under the Trade Expansion Act. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

• Roche Challenges $171M Patent Judgment At Federal Circuit – Meso Scale Diagnostic’s $171M verdict has been appealed by Roche to the Federal Circuit on Wednesday.
• Raytheon Engine Patent Wrongly Nixed by “Futuristic” Invention – In a precedential opinion issued Thursday, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s decision to invalidate Raytheon’s patent based on obviousness.
• Federal Circuit Told Albright Has “Impossible Barrier” To Stay Cases – The Federal Circuit received a petition for a writ of mandamus to order Judge Albright to grant a stay during a review by the PTAB.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. New petitions were filed in two patent cases raising questions related to claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents. The court also denied seven petitions in patent cases raising questions related to Rule 36 judgments, injunctive relief, claim construction, awards of attorneys’ fees, eligible subject matter, deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, standing, inter partes review, and enablement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Telephonic oral argument is scheduled next week in an en banc veterans case, Arellano v. Wilkie. As for patent cases, petitions were filed in four cases raising questions related to an award of attorney’s fees, eligible subject matter, deference to findings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and standing. In addition, a new response was filed arguing against the grant of a petition raising questions related to injunctive relief. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, we are including in today’s post a recent precedential opinion in a patent case. The court had published the opinion on its website on December 23, but then removed the opinion from its website on the same day. The court re-published the opinion on December 28. Here are the introductions to the nonprecedential and precedential opinions.

This post summarizes the recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received responses for the following five petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission, and (5) Ford Motor Co. v. United States.
• The Supreme Court received replies in the four following petitions: (1) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., (3) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., and (4) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
• In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., Baxter International filed an amicus brief in favor of the respondent.

Here are the details.

• A new petition was filed in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
• New responses were filed in (1) Celgene Corp. v. Peter, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, and (3) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC
• New replies were filed in (1) General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp. and (2) Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals LLC

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

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In granted cases, the Court postponed one oral argument. In petitions cases, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to retroactive application of inter partes review and waiver with respect to an Appointments Clause challenge. Two responses in opposition to petitions were filed in patent cases raising questions related to the written description requirement and standing to appeal in inter partes review proceedings. There was one new reply brief filed in a veterans case concerning attorneys fees. And several amicus briefs were filed in three 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 granted cases, there is no activity to report this week. With respect to petitions cases, new petitions were filed in five cases, two amicus briefs were filed in another case, and the Court denied a petition. Here are the details.