FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. In the first precedential opinion, the court affirmed a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. In the second precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In two of the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit denied petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to transfer cases from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. One of the other nonprecedential orders, however, granted in part a petition for a writ of mandamus and, in particular, directed the Western District of Texas to decide a transfer motion. The last nonprecedential order dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the dismissal.

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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court: one in a veterans case, one challenging the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances, and two in pro se cases. The government waived its right to respond in a contract case, and a private party waived its right to respond in the case addressing the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances. 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:

• an article about how the “Federal Circuit refused . . . to rehear a challenge to a Delaware judge’s probe into the financing of patent litigation”;
• another article about “Sanofi and Regeneron on Friday urg[ing] the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Amgen’s arguments that it deserves broad patent coverage on cholesterol drugs”; and
• a blog post examining the reasons why the “Federal Circuit has ordered [Google’s] case moved out of the Western District of Texas (Waco) to the Northern District of California.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal of the claim for lack of a cognizable property interest. The second comes in patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In it, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s denial of rehearing of two inter partes review proceedings. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

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

• an article about a Federal Circuit decision finding “[a] Texas federal court ‘clearly abused its discretion’ when declining to transfer a patent-infringement lawsuit against Google LLC”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit “vacat[ing] what it called an ‘extraordinarily high’ legal-fee award of $185 million”; and
• a third article about how a “Virginia federal judge issued a bench trial ruling Monday that ImmunoGen is not entitled to a patent on a cancer treatment . . . after the Federal Circuit vacated the court’s previous decision and ordered a trial.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order in a patent case granting a petition for a writ of mandamus and ordering the Western District of Texas to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals for failure to prosecute. Here is text from the order and links to the dismissals.

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 a “Federal Circuit panel . . . seemed wary that . . . large companies used a roundabout way to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Fintiv policy”;
• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision finding that two patents “for remote education and training systems is patent ineligible”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit upholding a lower court’s decision related to Amazon.com Inc.’s virtual assistant Alexa.

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

• an article about “a bid by Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Corp and others to revive their challenge to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that made it harder to contest the validity of patents issued by the agency”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s skepticism about “allegations that [Facebook’s] news feed infringed on Usability Sciences’ 2014 patent”; and
• a blog post about the Federal Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Amazon.com, Inc.

This morning the Federal Circuit released an opinion in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of Texas. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s claim construction as to one term, vacates its construction as to another term, and remands the case. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit vacates the Board’s affirmance of an examiner’s final rejection of claims. The second opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Affairs. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the denial of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. The Federal Circuit also released six nonprecedential opinions. One denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to transfer a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California; one grants a petition for a writ of mandamus to undo an order by the Eastern District of Texas transferring two cases to the Central District of California; and four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.