FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article about a mandamus petition claiming “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal ‘unlawfully’ interfered with a patent validity challenge”; and
• a blog post about the Federal Circuit denying “General Motor’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge Alan Albright to transfer a patent infringement case.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions in separate cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the first precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Veterans Court’s denial of a request to exclude certain payments in calculating a veteran’s non-service-connected pension. In the second precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Veterans Court’s conclusion that a veteran is barred from receiving reimbursement for specific medical treatment. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer an appeal from the Western District of Texas to the Eastern District of Michigan. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One grants an unopposed motion to deconsolidate appeals and dismiss an appeal; one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; and one vacates an order denying transfer from the Eastern District of Texas to the Western District of Tennessee and remands the case. Here is text from the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential orders. The first denies a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Northern District of California seeking to order the district court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The second denies a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a discovery order in the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order late in the day yesterday granting a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the orders.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post assessing the Federal Circuit’s “reject[ion] [of the] argument that . . . PTAB Judges have an improper financial interest in instituting AIA proceedings”;
• an article discussing how General Motors, in a recent Federal Circuit decision, “beat back a challenge by computer-component maker Micro Mobio Corp” in a trademark dispute;
• another blog post providing an update on a case “in which the court concluded that the USPTO cannot recover expert witness fees in actions brought under 35 U.S.C. § 145”; and
• an article detailing how “Nokia Oyj, Sprint Corp., and Verizon Communications Inc. are cleared of allegations that their products infringe wireless network patents owned by Traxcell Technologies LLC.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions. The first two come in related patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Texas and address claim construction, infringement, and definiteness. The third comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Columbia and replaces an earlier opinion, issued by the Federal Circuit in August, regarding the shifting of attorney and expert witness fees in civil actions to obtain patents. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions appealed respectively from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The last week has been a busy one. As for granted cases, this week the Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc., agreeing with the Federal Circuit that the America Invents Act created an Appointments Clause violation with respect to the appointment and supervision of Administrative Patent Judges in inter partes review proceedings. As for petition cases:

• three new petitions were filed in patent law, Tucker Act, and pro se cases;
• two respondents filed briefs in opposition in vaccine and government contract cases;
• a respondent filed a brief in support of a petition in a patent case;
• a reply brief was submitted in supported of a petition in a patent case;
• the government filed waivers of right to respond in a tax case and a pro se case;
• a petitioner in a patent case filed a motion to dismiss; and
• the Court dismissed thirteen petitions.

Here are the details.