FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, five new amicus brief were filed in support of the appellant. As for requests for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received four new petitions raising questions relating to patent eligibility and claim construction. The court also invited a response to a petition that raised questions concerning the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the appropriate timing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued three nonprecedential orders. All three orders ruled on to petitions for writs of mandamus to transfer cases out of the Western District of Texas. The court denied petitions in two of the orders, but granted the petition in one of the orders. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.  

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

• a post commenting on the Federal Circuit’s rehearing grant rates and how to achieve rehearing at the court;
• discussion of a letter sent by two U.S. senators to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning patent law’s disclosure requirements; and
• an article discussing a recent case addressing subject matter eligibility of software claims based on improvement to computer functionality.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the United States Court of International Trade. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in employment and veteran cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims respectively. Finally, the court also issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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

• a Federal Circuit opinion reversing a $1.2 billion dollar jury verdict;
• the use of court-appointed technical advisors by federal district courts in patent cases;
• how the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s order prohibiting certain expert testimony related to damages in a patent case; and
• a Federal Circuit opinion in a patent case addressing the construction of a claim preamble.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued six precedential opinions in veterans, government contract, and patent cases. The patent cases address issues of claim construction, damages expert testimony, the written description requirement, and eligibility. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On August 4, the Federal Circuit also issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Google LLC, another case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. As in In re Apple Inc., the court denied the petition. The court held that “Google has not made a clear and indisputable showing that transfer was required.” The court reasoned it was not “prepared on mandamus to disturb those factual findings” of the district court. Here is a summary of the case and the order. 

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight six dispositions, one new case, one case with new briefing, and one oral argument recap. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one in a patent case and two in employment cases. The precedential patent opinion addresses eligibility. The two precedential employment opinions address the interpretation and application of 38 U.S.C. § 714, which governs the removal, demotion, or suspension of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on performance or alleged misconduct. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in one of these employment cases. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case, and that opinion addresses claim construction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case, a nonprecedential opinion affirming the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The court also issued three nonprecedential orders, including two orders in patent cases denying petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer the underlying cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.