FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed in two related cases. Both petitions raise questions related to the law governing motions to transfer venue. The Federal Circuit also denied three petitions for en banc hearing raising questions concerning the identification of real parties in interest in inter partes review proceedings, estoppel based on inter partes review, and the test for design patent infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit issued two en banc opinions, one in a trade case, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, and another in a government contract case, Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States. Additionally, two petitions for en banc rehearing were filed in patent cases. One raises questions related to identification of real parties in interest in inter partes review proceedings. The other raises questions related to claim construction. Finally, a response was filed in opposition to a petition in another patent case raising questions related to estoppel and inter partes review. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a report discussing how the Federal Circuit recently confirmed “the narrow nature of the path to appeal the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decisions whether to launch validity reviews”;
• a blog post highlighting how “two more amici have now weighed in . . . in a case challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) rescission of former Director Kathi Vidal’s guidance on discretionary denial”;
• a piece discussing how before a recent Federal Circuit’s decision courts wrestled “with the extent to which IPR estoppel bars patent challengers in district court litigation from raising invalidity arguments based on prior art that was or reasonably could have been raised”; and
• a blog post highlighting how “a backlog of cases before” the Merit Systems Protection Board “that had been all but cleared out earlier this year has started to build again, as the board lacks a quorum to consider appeals of decisions by the agency’s hearing officers.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, V.O.S. Selections filed its response brief in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Sixteen amicus briefs were also filed in that case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit received three new petitions for en banc review in patent cases. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article describing how “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is going all-in on generative artificial intelligence solutions to help improve its business operations”;
• a piece examining a recent precedential Federal Circuit holding that “inter partes review estoppel does not extend to arguments that the claimed invention is invalid because it was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]housands of disabled veterans could be eligible for additional retroactive combat-related special compensation after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that federal officials had unfairly capped those payments.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a piece discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “said scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier will get another chance to show they ought to own the key patents on what many consider the defining biotechnology invention of the 21st century”;
• an article discussing how a panel of the D.C. Circuit “seemed skeptical” of Judge Newman’s argument “that a statute allowing courts to self-police instances of misconduct and disability is unconstitutional across the board”;
• a blog post criticizing a recent Federal Circuit decision that he says “appears to have unintentionally upended fundamental principles of [inter partes review] estoppel”; and
• a report that the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center filed an amicus brief with the Federal Circuit, urging the court to “review a decision rejecting Xencor’s application for an antibody patent.”

Today the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, a nonprecedential opinion, two summary affirmances, and a dismissal. Two of the precedential opinions comes in related patent cases. In the first opinion, the court dismisses an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board because the appellant did not have standing. Notably, Judge Hughes filed a concurring opinion. In the second opinion, the court reversed an order by the District of New Jersey granting a preliminary injunction. In the third precedential opinion the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the District of Delaware in a patent case. In the fourth precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissal.

Yesterday afternoon the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders, which were all dismissals. This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. The first opinion affirms a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims, while the second opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first order transfers a case to the District of Arizona, while the second order is another dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and transfer as well as links to the dismissals.

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.