FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post arguing that in a recent case “the Federal Circuit was wrong in affirming the district court’s refusal to enhance damages”;
• a piece likening the current U.S. patent system to the Titanic, asserting it is “fast approaching an iceberg with disaster imminent”;
• a report explaining how the Supreme Court recently “declined to hear a patent owner’s challenge of the court’s framework for analyzing potentially abstract ideas not eligible for patent protection”; and
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit “has refused to revisit its decision forcing Teva Pharmaceuticals to delist certain inhaler patents from the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. The opinion vacates and remands based on the finding of an incorrect claim construction ruling by the district court. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. The first order deconsolidates cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, dismisses some of the cases, and informs the parties how they are to proceed on the remainder of the cases. The second order summarily affirms a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a case for failure to pay the docketing fee. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion granting in part and dismissing in part a petition to review a final rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia and the Central District of California. Finally, late yesterday the court issued two nonprecedential orders dismissing cases for failure to prosecute. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders. 

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

• a blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in a patent case addressing the written description requirement and ownership of patents;
• another blog post explaining how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to address a challenge to the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate ex parte reexaminations based on estoppel; and
• an article assessing the Federal Circuit’s recent determination that “claims of a patent relating to methods for treating acne are invalid because they would be obvious to someone skilled in the field.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in part, disagreeing with the majority’s decision to reverse a jury verdict on the issue of joint ownership of a patent. The second comes in veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Eastern District of Texas, respectively. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued six precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Virginia. The second comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The third and fourth come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fifth and sixth come in Tucker Act and tax cases respectively appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the court issues a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court granted certiorari in a veterans case. The Court also requested the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case. No new petitions were filed, but one amicus brief was submitted in support of a petition in a patent case and a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case. Additionally, the Court denied four petitions: two in patent cases and two in pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first opinion affirms a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims for failure to prosecute, and the second affirms a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to prosecute. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments and one erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and erratum.

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 recent announcement that “January oral arguments will be conducted by phone”;
• another article detailing the Federal Circuit’s recent “switch back to remote oral arguments amid the omicron spike”;
• yet another article discussing “six bid protest decisions worthy of note”; and
• a blog post analyzing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination of certain patent claims as “unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and addresses novelty and obviousness. The second comes in a benefits case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the court issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Western District of Texas to dismiss a patent case for improper venue. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.