FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in two patent cases related to so-called skinny labelling and eligibility, respectively; a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement; a reply brief was submitted in a veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; and, finally, the Court denied more than 20 petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia; the second comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; and the third comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, in the trade case, Judge Newman dissented. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, the District of South Carolina, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, respectively. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, a link to the dismissal, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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 petition cases, one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a case raising questions about procedure; a brief in opposition was submitted in another patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in two patent cases.

Guest Post by Tejas N. Narechania*

The Supreme Court’s decision in Arthrex is the latest in a growing set of decisions regarding administrative patent law. A close look at this entire series suggests that Arthrex is a culmination of a subtle shift in the Court’s approach to such cases. Where the Court once lauded the Patent Office’s expertise, the Court’s more recent decisions have emphasized flexibility and political accountability in patent decision-making. This development is both significant and salutary. For one, it marks the ongoing maturation of administrative patent law as one branch of administrative law, subject to the influences of the myriad administrative law values beyond expertise. This shift, moreover, is constructive, subjecting innovation- and access-governing principles to more democratic constraints.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• a blog post assessing the Federal Circuit’s “reject[ion] [of the] argument that . . . PTAB Judges have an improper financial interest in instituting AIA proceedings”;
• an article discussing how General Motors, in a recent Federal Circuit decision, “beat back a challenge by computer-component maker Micro Mobio Corp” in a trademark dispute;
• another blog post providing an update on a case “in which the court concluded that the USPTO cannot recover expert witness fees in actions brought under 35 U.S.C. § 145”; and
• an article detailing how “Nokia Oyj, Sprint Corp., and Verizon Communications Inc. are cleared of allegations that their products infringe wireless network patents owned by Traxcell Technologies LLC.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions. The first two come in related patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Texas and address claim construction, infringement, and definiteness. The third comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Columbia and replaces an earlier opinion, issued by the Federal Circuit in August, regarding the shifting of attorney and expert witness fees in civil actions to obtain patents. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions appealed respectively from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case addressing 35 U.S.C. § 145, which governs the shifting of fees in successful appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to federal district court to challenge the rejection of patent applications. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case and a government contract case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Arthrex Fix Is No Fix At All – In an article posted on iam-media.com, Paul Morinville reports that “[t]he long-awaited SCOTUS Arthrex decision does not provide the solution to the problem at the heart of the case.”

Texas Court Bounces Triller/TikTok Patent Dispute to California – Chris Cooke wrote an article on completemusicupdate.com reporting about how a Texas district judge sent a patent case between Triller and TikTok to the courts in California, perhaps due to criticism by the Federal Circuit.

Are 5% of All U.S. Issued Patents Presumed to Be Unenforceable Under Laches Due to Their Priority Claims? – On IPWatchDog.com, Kate Gaudry reports on the “potential impacts” of the recent Federal Circuit case Hyatt v Hirshfeld concerning prosecution laches.

Fed. Circ. Won’t Make Albright Rebuke Precedential – Adam Lidgett on Law360 reported on how the Federal Circuit stated it will not “reissue as precedential a March decision rebuking Judge Alan Albright for repeatedly failing to rule on transfer motions in a timely manner.”

After Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, it Might Be Time to Pay Attention to Prosecution Laches – Kate Gaudry recently posted on IPWatchDog.com about the repercussions of Hyatt v. Hirshfeld and prosecution laches for attorneys.

Amazon, Macy’s, Dell, Others Free From Patent Infringement Suit – Perry Cooper, a legal reporter for BloombergLaw.com, reported on the aftermath of a recent decision made by the Federal Circuit in SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com.

Here is the latest.