FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In stark contrast to last week, it was a rather quiet week at the Court. Highlights include an additional amicus brief in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., two responses to petitions, and one denial of a petition.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report includes highlights of amicus briefs filed in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., a report on oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., and a comment on the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in five petitions related to patent eligibility.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for merits cases, highlights include an oral argument and a slew of amicus briefs, respectively, in two cases. As for petitions, only one new petition was filed, and just a handful of response and reply briefs were filed. The Supreme Court, however, denied petitions in a large number of cases, including most notably in Athena, Hikma, and HP, as we previously discussed. Here are the details.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in a trade case, and a precedential order denying a petition for rehearing en banc. The Federal Circuit also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four opinions, two precedential and two nonprecedential. The precedential opinions came in a veterans case and a vaccine case, while the nonprecedential opinions came in an employment case and a patent case. Here are the introductions.

Last Friday, a panel of the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Google, a patent case. As we noted in our argument preview, Google seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the district court (here, Chief Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas) to dismiss the case for lack of venue. Chief Judge Gilstrap concluded that Google’s “edge servers” located at Internet Service Provider locations within the district constitute a “regular and established place of business” of Google, subjecting Google to venue in the district court. We are keeping track of the case because it attracted an amicus brief. In that brief, a group of companies lodged their support for Google’s position that these servers do not suffice under the venue statute. Here is our argument recap.

As a reminder, once a month we provide an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. Today with respect to these cases we highlight one opinion, briefing in six cases, a recent oral argument, and three upcoming oral arguments. (Note you can always find information related to these cases on our “Other Cases” page.) On to the update.

This week the Federal Circuit will hold 15 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 57 cases. Of all these cases, the only one attracting an amicus brief is Monk v. Wilkie, a case where nine veterans seek to overturn the denial of their request for class certification, the result of a 4-4 split of the en banc Court of Veterans Appeals. Notably, however, on Friday next week (outside of the traditional week the court hears arguments) the court will hold a hearing in In re Google LLC, another case attracting an amicus brief. In this case Google is seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the Eastern District of Texas to dismiss this patent case for improper venue.

Another case being argued in December that attracted an amicus brief is In re Google LLC. In this case, Google seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to dismiss the case for improper venue. According to Google, the case presents the question of whether “a defendant who keeps computer equipment in the facility of a third party in a judicial district has a ‘regular and established place of business’ in that district under the patent venue statute.” Besides Google, the other interested party in this case is the plaintiff-patent owner, Super Interconnect Technologies LLC.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In granted cases, the Court issued orders on motions for divided arguments and received two reply briefs. In petitions cases, the Court granted a petition, denied two petitions, and received a new petition and several briefs.