FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion concerns the construction of terms of a patent held not to be infringed. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal of a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which held certain claims unpatentable as obvious. One of the orders is a dismissal, and the other denies a petition and additional motions. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the denial of the petition, and a link to the dismissal.

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

• a first article concerning “the importance of adhering to local rules on initial disclosures in Delaware” after the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent case;
• a second article about Apple potentially escaping a $576 million judgment against it in a patent case; and
• a third article discussing the Federal Circuit’s reopening to the public yesterday.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint under the duplicative-litigation doctrine. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second opinions come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the third comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• a blog post examining “[w]ho appeals (and wins) patent cases”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently ruled that “[e]rrors don’t have to be immediately found in patents” to later render the patent invalid as obvious; and
• another article highlighting how a petitioner in a patent eligibility case “filed a reply brief . . . distancing its petition from that of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc.’s, which was denied certiorari on June 30.”

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

• an article addressing some of “the biggest patent decisions so far this year”;
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit found that an “[a]ttorney improperly represented clients while [he was a] Navy employee”; and
• a blog post noting how “[i]n a new opinion the [Federal Circuit] asked and answered an interesting question: What if most on-point prior art was accidentally created due to a typographical error?” 

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in part. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court recently denied two petitions. One raised questions related to the notice required to collect damages for infringement. The other raised a question related to the appropriate timing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for panel rehearing and en banc rehearing. The petition comes in a patent case appealed from the District of New Jersey. Notably, Judge O’Malley wrote a dissenting opinion, and Judge Newman dissented without opinion. Here are the introductions to the order and the dissenting opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, five new amicus brief were filed in support of the appellant. As for requests for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received four new petitions raising questions relating to patent eligibility and claim construction. The court also invited a response to a petition that raised questions concerning the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the appropriate timing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal. Here are the details.