FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a vaccine case, affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential opinions, two in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one from the Court of Federal Claims, and one from the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Of the precedential opinions, one of the cases was a patent case appealed from a district court and the other was a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Both of the nonprecedential opinions come in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the en banc court issued an order granting an immediate administrative stay of judgments and permanent injunctions. As for the two pending en banc cases, the court will hear oral argument next week in one, a government contract case, and the court received an amicus brief in the other, which raises questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference. As for pending petitions, since our last update the court received five new petitions, three in patent cases, one in a case raising questions related to statutory interpretation, and one in a pro se case. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition in a patent case raising a question related to collateral estoppel. The court also denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

In late May, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, Google appealed a judgment decided of the Western District of Texas, which denied its motion for a new trial on damages. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case for a new trial on damages. The Federal Circuit additionally reinstated the panel opinion as to issues other than damages. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court issued an en banc opinion in a patent case. Additionally, two new en banc petitions were filed. The first raises claim construction questions and the second was filed pro se. The Federal Circuit also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to collateral estoppel, and a new response was filed in opposition to an en banc brief. One amicus brief was also filed with the Federal Circuit. Lastly, the court recently denied five petitions for en banc rehearing. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in an en banc case appealed from the Western District of Texas. Notably, Judges Reyna and Stark concurred in part and dissented in part. Today, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trademark case. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions affirming judgments, the first in a veterans case, the second in a patent case, and the third in an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, as well as a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. In the patent case, the Federal Circuit affirms holdings that claims are invalid because they are ineligible for patenting. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explains why it affirms a judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. In the case appealed from the Northern District of California, the Federal Circuit affirms a judgment of invalidity for lack of eligibility. The court also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court is reviewing whether a district court erred in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses,” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and devoid of connection to the patent’s incremental improvement to the art.” This is our argument recap.

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

• an article reporting how last week in a “rare en banc” oral argument “Google LLC urged ten Federal Circuit judges to wipe out a $20 million Texas patent verdict over smart thermostats, arguing the jury shouldn’t have heard an expert witness’ description of settlements the plaintiff reached with three companies”;
• a blog post explaining how in a recent trademark opinion the Federal Circuit “clarified that terms once considered generic do not necessarily remain permanently unregistrable”;
• a piece claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again”; and
• a report explaining how recently a “patent owner has told the U.S. Supreme Court that there’s momentum behind its push for scrutiny of the Federal Circuit’s one-word orders in patent cases and its challenge to courts’ summary judgment practices in such matters.”