FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the precedential opinions, the court respectively affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and affirmed a judgment in a copyright case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in the copyright case. In the nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit respectively affirmed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims and affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit respectively transferred an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in combined appeals from the Court of International Trade as well as a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for permission to appeal. Late Friday the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.

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 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.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Five new petitions were filed with the Court–four in patent cases and one in a pro se case. Additionally, the respondents in two different patent cases filed their briefs in opposition, while the Court requested a response to a petition in a government contract case. Upon the parties’ request, the Court dismissed Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina Inc.. Finally, the Court denied two other petitions, one in a trademark case and one in a patent case.

Here are the details.

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

• The Court invited the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility.
• Five new petitions were filed in patent, veterans, Tucker Act, and trademark cases.
• Seventeen new briefs in opposition were filed in sixteen cases.
• Five new reply briefs were filed.
• One supplemental brief was filed.
• One amicus brief was filed in a patent case.
• Five waivers of right to respond were submitted.
• The Court denied eight petitions.

Here are the details.

Guest Post by Kristen Osenga

In any given year, the Federal Circuit covers a wide spectrum of issues in patent law, and 2020 was no different. Of course, a lot about 2020 was different — including seeing the Court hold (and now livestream) telephonic arguments — but most of the patent cases decided were similar in type to other years . . . a little patent-eligible subject matter, a little jurisdiction and venue, a case about infringement of standard essential patents, and a bit of deciding what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can and cannot do. There were no real blockbuster cases in 2020 (other than maybe the Arthrex denial of rehearing, more on that later). This could be due to the pandemic, or maybe it is a sign that patent law is settling in for a bit. Of course, that does not mean the law has settled in the right place, but that is a different issue for a different day.

For today, a few cases are worth highlighting from the Federal Circuit’s 2020 patent opinions. To be clear, this is not an exhaustive review, but rather simply a short selection noting some of the more important patent cases decided last year.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. We have activity to report in both of the court’s two pending en banc veterans cases: a unanimous opinion in one and the filing of the appellant’s reply brief in the other. In patent cases with petitions for en banc rehearing, six new petitions have been filed raising questions related to patent eligibility, claim construction, due process, inducement of infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman, and venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman. The court has also issued invitations for responses to petitions in two cases raising questions related to patent eligibility and intervention. And the court has denied three petitions raising questions related to obviousness, infringement and claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Three new petitions were filed, one in a patent case raising a question related to obviousness; another in a patent case raising a question related to anticipation; and another in a pro se case. As for previously-filed petitions, this week’s highlight is a response to a petition in a patent case raising questions related to claim construction and infringement in the context of compliance with an industry standard. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In one of the two pending en banc veterans cases, the Court invited the National Organization of Veterans Advocates to file an amended petition. In the other case, two amicus briefs were filed. With respect to petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases, highlights include a new invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to literal infringement and claim construction; a new amicus brief filed in a case raising questions related to prosecution history estoppel, vitiation, and reasonable royalties; and the denial of two petitions in cases raising questions related to patent marking, expert testimony, willful infringement, and inventorship. Here are the details.