FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court granted certiorari in a veterans case. The Court also requested the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case. No new petitions were filed, but one amicus brief was submitted in support of a petition in a patent case and a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case. Additionally, the Court denied four petitions: two in patent cases and two in pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Two new petitions, however, were filed with the Court: one in a trade case and one in a takings case. As for previously filed petitions, one brief in opposition and three reply briefs were filed with the Court in patent, Tucker Act, and takings cases. Additionally, the government filed a waiver of right to respond in a pro se patent case, and the Court denied a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, since our last update the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Additionally, since our last update no new petitions have been filed with the Court. As for previously filed petitions, however, in three patent cases four briefs in opposition were filed. In addition, the Court denied a petition in another patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update two new petitions were filed: one in a patent case presenting questions regarding the Appointments Clause and one in a pro se patent case presenting a question concerning patent eligibility. In addition, two amicus briefs were filed in the same case in support of the petitioner, who raised questions concerning inter partes review. Moreover, two briefs in opposition were filed in patent cases raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the government filed a supplemental brief in a government contracts case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, moreover, no new petitions have been filed with the Court. As for pending petitions, however, five amicus briefs and a waiver of right to respond were filed in a patent case asking whether the Federal Circuit holds jurisdiction over appeals or petitions challenging denials of petitions for inter partes review. Finally, an amicus brief was filed in another patent case also addressing the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit over appeals from denials of petitions for inter partes review. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update three new petitions were filed in patent cases addressing eligibility, procedure in inter partes review proceedings, and the printed publication category of prior art. Additionally, the Court requested responses to two pending petitions involving challenges to the use of administrative patent judges under the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

• Good News for Patentees: Bipartisan NSCAI Invokes National Security in Calling for Legislation to Clarify Patent Eligibility – A recent report released by a bipartisan congressionally-established commission lends powerful support to Section 101 reform initiatives.
• Dish Rejected in Bid to Revive Data Compression Patent Challenge – The Federal Circuit refused to jump-start a patent challenge after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that the challenge was time-barred.
• Method for Determining Haplotype Phase Found Subject Matter Ineligible – Applying the Alice framework, the Federal Circuit emphasized that a mathematical or scientific algorithm, without more innovation or improvement, is patent ineligible.

Here’s the latest.

• Federal Circuit Backs PTO’s Broad Discretion Over AIA Challenges – In denying a petition for a writ of mandamus directed at the PTAB, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the discretion of the PTO over institutions of IPRs.
• Albright Rebuked Again by CAFC After Letting Second Transfer Motion Linger – The Federal Circuit granted a second stay in proceedings in In re Tracfone Wireless, Inc. before Judge Alan Albright after having recently granted another stay in a separate case.
• Federal Circuit Will Weigh In On Government Shutdown Wage Case – The government will argue before the Federal Circuit about failing to pay timely wages to government workers during a government shutdown.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a decision to unseal an amended complaint in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming a denial of a motion to compel arbitration, and a precedential order dismissing an appeal and denying mandamus with respect to a denial of institution of an inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.