FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion affirms a sua sponte order of the District of Delaware ordering a witness to appear in person for testimony regarding potential fraud on the court. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms in part and dismisses in part a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second affirms a judgment of the District of Utah in a patent infringement case, while the third affirms a judgment of the Northern District of Georgia in a related case based on collateral estoppel. The fourth affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order is a denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the order and Rule 36 judgment.

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion dismissing an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing a petition for lack of jurisdiction and an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also released another nonprecedential order granting a motion to dismiss.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court invited the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility.
• Five new petitions were filed in patent, veterans, Tucker Act, and trademark cases.
• Seventeen new briefs in opposition were filed in sixteen cases.
• Five new reply briefs were filed.
• One supplemental brief was filed.
• One amicus brief was filed in a patent case.
• Five waivers of right to respond were submitted.
• The Court denied eight petitions.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

Three new petitions were filed in Dupuch-Carron v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Optimum Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the Interior, and Sasso v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. A new reply was filed in Sandoz Inc. v. Immunex Corp. and Merit Medical Systems, Inc. v. Khan.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new response briefs were filed with the Court in the following cases: Merit Medical Systems, Inc. v. Khan, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, and Sandoz Inc. v. Immunex Corp.
• Two new response briefs were filed with the Court in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC and Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc.
• The Court received one new waiver of right to respond from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in Blanton v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received a response brief from Hologic in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a case that has been granted certiorari.
• The Court received two new petitions for writ of certiorari in Sowinski v. California Air Resources Board and Merit Medical Systems, Inc. v. Khan.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court in response to the petition in Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc.
• Five new amicus briefs were filed with Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petition in Simmons v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new amicus brief was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance in a case that has been granted certiorari, United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• The Court received eight new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new reply briefs were filed with the Court in the following cases: (1) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., (2) Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc., and (3) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC.
• One new amicus brief was filed in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation by Jonathan Stroud
• Three new waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in ten cases.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. As for granted petitions, a new brief was filed in one of the two pending veterans cases. As for pending petitions, highlights include two new petitions, one in a patent case raising questions related to claim construction and one in a pro se case; and the denial of four petitions in patent cases raising questions related to obviousness, prosecution history estoppel, vitiation, reasonable royalties, and sanctions. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. An amended petition was filed in a veterans case recently argued before the en banc court. As for pending en banc petitions in patent cases, highlights include new responses to petitions raising questions related to claim preclusion and sanctions; a new amicus brief filed in a case raising a question related to obviousness; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to remedies, issue and claim preclusion, jurisdiction in inter partes review, and alleged due process and takings violations in inter partes review. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court heard oral argument in a veterans case last week. As for petitions for en banc consideration in patent cases, a new petition was filed in a case raising questions related to literal infringement and claim construction; the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to sanctions; and the court denied two petitions, one in a pro se case and one raising a question related to non-obviousness. Here are the details.