FedCircuitBlog

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

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. As for still-pending petitions, three new petitions were filed: one in a patent case raising questions related to eligible subject matter and two filed by pro se petitioners. Waivers of right to respond were filed in two cases: the patent case already mentioned raising questions related to eligible subject matter and another patent case also concerning eligibility. Finally, a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case that raises a question regarding the appealability of a discretionary denial of inter partes review. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions have been filed, both in patent cases. In addition, five amicus briefs were submitted in a case presenting a challenge to the Chevron doctrine. Also, the government waived its right right to respond in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief and the court scheduled the oral argument to occur in February. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. As for petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received two new petitions raising questions relating to the standard for enhanced damages and the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. The court also received responses to two petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to the interpretation of a forum selection clause, a writ of mandamus, and comparable licenses and royalty calculations, and another petition in a pro se 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:

• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s trend of “directing Judge Alan Albright . . . to transfer a case to the Northern District of California”;
• a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of ineligibility for claims directed to a computer authentication method”;
• an article assessing how the Federal Circuit “[a]ddress[ed] venue in the context of a Hatch-Waxman case” and “explained that sending a paragraph IV notice letter to a company in the district is insufficient to establish venue”; and
• another article discussing a Federal Circuit ruling in a government contract case.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion reviewing a judgment of the District of Delaware holding patent claims invalid for lack of eligibility. The Federal Circuit also issued four nonprecedential orders. The first order dismisses a petition for a writ of mandamus after notification by the parties that mandamus relief is no longer necessary. The other three orders all grant petitions for writs of mandamus directing the the Western District of Texas to transfer patent cases to the Northern District of California. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the Department of Veterans Affairs filed its en banc brief. As for requests for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received a new petition filed by a pro se party and denied three petitions related to venue, eligibility, and claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion addressing two consolidated appeals from judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments in cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to writs of mandamus. The court invited a response to a petition that raised questions concerning the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman amendments, and the court received two amicus briefs in support of this petition. Finally, the court denied a petition for rehearing en banc in a case that raised a question relating to the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Here are the details.