FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders on its website. One transfers a case to the Western District of Texas, while the other four dismiss appeals. Here are links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s practice of reversing agency decisions and patent eligibility. Two waivers of right to respond were filed, one in the patent case raising the question about reversing agency decisions and one in a pro se case. A brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the ability to review determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. An amicus brief was filed in a veterans case. And, finally, the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

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

• a blog post providing an analysis of the oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster, which “involved a provision in the federal Lanham Act that directs the Patent and Trademark Office . . . to refuse to register any mark that identifies ‘a particular living individual’”;
• an article discussing “an opinion dealing largely with how much a patent owner can rely on information and belief-based allegations rather than facts”; and
• an article calling a district court opinion “a decision based on ignorance of patent law that must be overturned.”

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

• an article about how the “Federal Circuit . . . backed a pair of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions that said Netflix failed to prove that two streaming patents were invalid”; and
• an article discussing how “Google waived its right to respond to a petition for writ of certiorari . . . filed by the inventors of a method for protecting computers from malware.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case. Additionally, a waiver of right to respond was filed in the same patent case, and a reply brief was filed in support of a petition asking the Court to consider whether the deadline to file a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion rejects the argument the Patent Trial and Appeal Board failed to address several arguments made in two inter partes review proceedings. The court found no error in the how the Board understood the arguments at issue, but in a dissenting opinion Judge Dyk disagrees with the court. Two of the four orders are dismissals, while the other two transfer cases—one to a circuit court of appeals and another to a district court. Here is the introduction to the precedential opinion, selected text from the transfers, and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses a judgement of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on an erroneous claim construction. The first nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment in a takings case; the second resolves an appeal from a judgment of a district court, which construed certain claims in a means-plus-function format and held those claims as indefinite under that construction; the third addresses subject matter jurisdiction; the fourth comes in a pro se case. One of the orders denies a petition to transfer a case; the other two orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the order denying the petition, and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinions address appeals from judgements of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to the patentability of claims. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment in a patent case decided by a Texas district court. One nonprecedential order transfers a case, and two are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

Today, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion and a nonprecedential order. The opinion addresses an appeal in a patent case in which a district court found patent claims invalid as indefinite. The order denies a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to order a judge of the International Trade Commission to vacate an order preventing a witness from testifying. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the court denied an en banc petition in a patent case. That’s it Here are the details.