FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to transfers of cases and the ability of a Federal Circuit panel to nullify or render advisory an earlier judgment of the court. The court also received a response to a petition raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. 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:

• an article discussing how, “[o]nce thought to be a toss-up, the Federal Circuit is now ruling for appellees nearly twice as often as appellants”;
• another article addressing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “shows [a] less rigid analysis” of corroboration of inventorship; and
• a third article highlighting several pending Supreme Court petitions in patent cases, including more than one that “raise important questions on Section 101 patent eligibility jurisprudence.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order granting petitions to order the Eastern District of Texas to transfer three consolidated cases to the Northern District of California. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in this case Judge Newman dissented without opinion. Finally, the court released an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Utah. Finally, the court released three nonprecedential orders. One denies a petition to transfer a case to the Northern District of California; one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denies petitions for writs of mandamus; and one denies a petition and cross-petition to appeal from an order of the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a death benefits case appealed from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The second comes in two consolidated patent cases appealed from the District of Delaware. The court also released four nonprecedential orders. Two of the orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus against, respectively, the Court of Federal Claims and Eastern District of Texas. The third order grants a voluntary dismissal, and the fourth transfers a case to the Second Circuit. Here are the introductions to the opinions and 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 petitioner filed his reply merits brief in George v. McDonough, a case concerning the scope of clear and unmistakable error in the context of review of denials of veterans’ claims for benefits. As to cases with pending petitions, the government filed a brief in opposition in a veterans case challenging the Federal Circuit’s application of the Chevron doctrine. Also, following a Supreme Court request last fall, the government finally submitted the view of the United States in a patent case raising questions related to preclusion. The Court also denied three petitions: one in a government contracts case and two in patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the court issued five 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. This week the Court granted certiorari in a veterans case that raises questions regarding equitable tolling and retroactive disability benefits. The Court also requested the Solicitor General file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case raising a question regarding standing to challenge the validity of patents. Additionally, three new petitions were filed with the Court: two in cases appealing decisions from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one in a patent case. Moreover, one amicus brief was submitted in a patent case; three briefs in opposition were filed in trade, employment, and veterans cases; one waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case; three petitions were denied; and one petition was dismissed. Here are the details.

Guest Post by Greg Reilly

For over a decade, patent litigation has been surprisingly concentrated in a single federal district court. At one time, almost half of the nation’s patent litigation occurred in small towns in eastern Texas.1 Now, 20% of patent litigation occurs before a single judge based in Waco, Texas.2 This concentration of patent litigation is not the result of the inherent characteristics of these districts but instead of the affirmative efforts of particular judges to attract patent cases to their courthouses.3 Scholarly commentary of this forum selling and patent litigation concentration, including by myself, has been largely critical.4 The primary objection is that the districts and judges competing for patent litigation improperly skew procedures in favor of the patentees who make the forum choice.5