FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion affirming a judgment by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The court also released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in a patent infringement case in which the parties disputed whether settlement agreements were discoverable or privileged. Finally, the court released a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.

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.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contracts case, a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. The Federal Circuit also denied two petitions for writs of mandamus in two nonprecedential orders. Finally, the court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus in another nonprecedential order. The writ of mandamus vacates an order by the Western District of Texas to hold a patent case in its Waco Division rather than its Austin Division. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

Here is this month’s 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 a disposition in a takings case, a patent case attracting an amicus brief on the issue of the non-obviousness requirement, new briefing in a patent case challenging post-grant review proceedings as violating due process, and four recent oral arguments in cases raising questions related to patent, takings, and veterans law. Here are the details.

As we have been reporting, last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of the patent cases, MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. This is our argument recap.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene 15 panels to consider about 69 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will hear oral arguments in 39 of the 69 cases. Of these argued cases, four attracted amicus briefs: one in a takings case, two in patent cases, and one in a veterans case. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

The fourth case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is a patent case entitled MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. In particular, the Federal Circuit will consider whether the district court erroneously excluded evidence of comparable license negotiations under the parol-evidence rule during a Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty analysis. This is our argument preview.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court in Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc. raising questions related to the Appointments Clause.
• One brief in opposition to the petition in Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. was filed with the Court by Minerva.
• Two reply briefs were filed with the Court, the first by Minerva in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., and the second by Cochlear in Cochlear Corp. v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research.
• Finally, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in two cases: (1) Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc. and (2) Wilkins v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Here are the details.

Here is this month’s 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 disposition in a veterans case, new briefs filed in two patent cases raising due process questions related to post grant review proceedings, four recent oral arguments in veterans and government contracts cases, and four upcoming oral arguments in patent, veterans, and takings cases.

Here is this month’s 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 five dispositions, three cases with new briefing, one recent oral argument, and two upcoming oral arguments.