FedCircuitBlog

Federal Circuit affirms decision to toss iPhone dual-camera patent lawsuit – Mike Peterson posted a piece on AppleInsider.com discussing a recent win by Apple at the Federal Circuit on the issue of patent eligibility, where the court found patent claims to be directed to an abstract idea.

Alice Ax Of TV Patent Defied Precedent, Full Fed. Circ. Told – An article on Law360.com discussed a recent petition seeking rehearing on another decision by a Federal Circuit panel on the issue of patent eligibility, where the court also found patent claims to be directed to an abstract idea.

Piercing Halo’s Haze at Year Five: Smoke Clearing on Enhanced Damages – On IPWatchDog.com, Michael Cicero reports on the impact of the Supreme Court’s Halo decision on patentees.

Even Feds With Lifetime Tenure Can Be Fired for Cause, Court Rules – In an article on GovExec.com, Eric Katz explained how in a recent precedential decision the Federal Circuit decided that dismissal of federal employees “does not require a special procedure.”

Today the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a decision of ineligibility in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Newman dissented. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Agency May Deny Patents if Inventors Delay Process, Court Says – Perry Cooper submitted an article on BloombergLaw.com about repercussions of a recent Federal Circuit case addressing prosecution laches, Hyatt v. Hirshfeld. 

How to Get “Boxed-In” and Blow a Judgment You Received: Sleeping in the Bed You Made – Five authors, Amanda Murphy, Brooke Winer, Melissa Santos, Grodan Wright, and Thomas Irving, wrote an article posted on NationalLawReview.com reporting on the holding from a recent Federal Circuit patent case, Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc., where the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to set aside a judgment based on “affirmative misrepresentations” related to alleged prior art.

Recent Case Action Restores Confidence in Federal Whistleblowers – Mathew B. Tully reported on FedSmith.com that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit, Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board, “has favorable implications for federal employee whistleblowers.”

Here is the latest.

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 recent dispositions in two patent cases and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a copyright case attracting two amicus briefs, new briefing (including a second amicus brief) in a patent case, and two recent oral arguments in a patent and a veterans case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Five new petitions were filed with the Court–four in patent cases and one in a pro se case. Additionally, the respondents in two different patent cases filed their briefs in opposition, while the Court requested a response to a petition in a government contract case. Upon the parties’ request, the Court dismissed Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina Inc.. Finally, the Court denied two other petitions, one in a trademark case and one in a patent case.

Here are the details.

One of the three cases on the Federal Circuit’s hearing schedule last week that attracted an amicus brief was Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board. Tao presented several arguments challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of her individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal, which alleged violations of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. After the U.S. Office of Special Counsel filed an amicus brief in support of Tao, the Merit Systems Protection Board filed its own brief agreeing that the underlying judgment should be vacated and the case should be remanded for further adjudication. Unsurprisingly, late last week a panel of the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, two nonprecedential opinions in pro se patent cases, and a nonprecedential opinion in a taking cases. The court also issued an erratum and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the erratum and summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case; two nonprecedential opinions involving the same appellant challenging separate decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board; a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case; and a nonprecedential opinion in an employment law case challenging an arbitrator’s decision. Here are the introductions of the opinions.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will continue to hear oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic, and again this month the court is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the court’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene 15 panels to consider 65 cases. Of these 65 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 47, and three cases attracted amicus briefs: one a veterans case, one a patent case, and one a case challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

The third case being considered next week that attracted an amicus brief is Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board. In this case, Tao presents several arguments challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of her individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal, which alleged violations of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. Notably, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel filed an amicus brief in support of Tao. Moreover, following the amicus brief, the Merit Systems Protection Board filed its own brief agreeing that the underlying judgment should be vacated and the case should be remanded for further adjudication, and this case is not scheduled for oral argument. Nevertheless, here we summarize the arguments made in the briefs in anticipation of the court’s upcoming decision in this case.