FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit heard “arguments at law schools and courthouses around the San Francisco Bay Area this week”;
• an article highlighting “the intense debate over restoring injunctive relief for patent holders,” noting how “two different camps within the pro-strong-patent rights community have emerged”;
• an article discussing yesterday’s oral argument in a case addressing whether inter partes review proceedings may consider abandoned patent applications published after the filing date of a patent under review; and
• a blog post discussing how the Patent Office “recently terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent use of a practitioner’s signature.”

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

• a blog post discussing a case set for argument this week in which the “Federal Circuit is set to decide an important issue regarding the scope of prior art that can be considered during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• an article reporting how the Supreme Court recently “turned down several petitions seeking review of decisions in patent cases, including appeals dealing with double patenting, patent eligibility and Patent Trial and Appeal Board procedures”; and
• an article highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision vacating and remanding a case because the lower court “wrongly dismissed” a claim “seeking a refund on tax penalties.”

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 67 cases. Of the 67 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 50 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel.  Notably, half of the panels will convene in and around San Francisco. These panels will take place at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law; the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco; Stanford Law School; Santa Clara University School of Law; and the San Francisco and San Jose locations of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The remaining six panels will convene at the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

As we mentioned on Monday, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. In this case, Lynk Labs appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding finding all challenged patent claims unpatentable. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight two new opinions in two patent cases and one new case that attracted an amicus brief in another patent case. We also highlight new briefing in three patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a veterans case and two patent cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight one new opinion in a veterans case and four new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a veterans case and three patent cases. We also highlight new briefing in two patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a trademark case and veterans case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight three new opinions and dispositions in a Little Tucker Act case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a takings case, and a patent case. We also highlight three new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a patent case, a trademark case, and a veterans case. We also highlight new briefing in four patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a patent case and government contract case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight four new cases that attracted amicus briefs: three patent cases and a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Merit System Protection Board. Additionally, we identified a new amicus brief filed in a patent case and highlight recent oral arguments in another patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one order dismissing an appeal. One precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims unpatentable as obvious. This first opinion ultimately concludes that the decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The other precedential opinion also addresses an appeal of a decision of the PTAB, this one concluding that the PTAB abused its discretion in determining that a party failed to identify a field of endeavor and thus failed to establish analogous art for purposes of an obviousness analysis. Finally, the nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal by the United States Court of Federal Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case holding that a failure to provide access to redacted information was a violation of due process. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released four nonprecedential orders, one granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss a cross-appeal, one dismissing an appeal as untimely, and two dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the grant of the motion to voluntarily dismiss and the dismissal for untimeliness, and links to the other dismissals.