FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first comes in a pro se employment case and the second addresses a claim for monetary damages for enslavement of the claimant’s Native American ancestors. The court also released five nonprecedential orders as well as a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four precedential opinions: two in patent cases appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and one in an international trade case appealed from the U.S. Court of International Trade. The court also released a nonprecedential order requiring the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order, and a link to the erratum.

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

• an article predicting how a recent Federal Circuit decision [will] likely provide a route for judges and plaintiffs in patent cases to circumvent an international treaty that creates hurdles when serving complaints on foreign defendants”;
• an article analyzing “the unsettled and contentions nature of [patent] infringement in the skinny-label context”; and
• an article report discussing how last week the Federal Circuit issued an order “forcing U.S. District Judge Alan Albright to move [a] patent dispute . . . from his court in Waco, Texas, . . . to Northern California.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer six actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for extraordinary relief in a veterans case and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the orders and a link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential erratum and two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here is the text of the erratum and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There is no news to report on granted cases and no new petitions were filed. However, four new reply briefs in support of petitions were filed, and the Supreme Court did deny four previously-filed petitions. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for merits cases, highlights include an oral argument and a slew of amicus briefs, respectively, in two cases. As for petitions, only one new petition was filed, and just a handful of response and reply briefs were filed. The Supreme Court, however, denied petitions in a large number of cases, including most notably in Athena, Hikma, and HP, as we previously discussed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Highlights include the reply brief on the merits in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., four new petitions (two in patent cases and two in veterans cases), two responses to petitions (both related to patent eligibility), three reply briefs in support of petitions (in one patent case and two veterans cases), and supplemental briefs and a letter to the court in five cases as a result of the government’s amicus briefs related to patent eligibility in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. and HP Inc. v. Berkheimer. Here are the details.