FedCircuitBlog

• Sweat the Small Stuff: Lessons of Federal Circuit Damages Cases – Marking, interest accrual, and awards calculation have been important issues in six Federal Circuit decisions on patent damages, but the Federal Circuit has been reluctant to overturn jury awards in other damages cases.
• Standard Essentiality is a Question for the Fact Finder – Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communications Technology Holdings that the trier of fact should determine whether patent claims are essential to all implementations of an industry standard.
• The Little Tucker Act is Alive and Well – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States reaffirms to plaintiffs with small non-tort claims against the United States that they can file either in the Court of Federal Claims or in a local district court.

Here’s the latest.

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.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights an article discussing the potential impact of the Federal Circuit’s holding in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States on fees for searching and downloading federal case files, more commentary on the confusion generated by the Federal Circuit’s approach to patent eligibility in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, and news concerning Fitbit’s case decided by the Federal Circuit last Thursday.

Last Wednesday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, NVLSP argues that that the federal government has been overcharging for electronic access to documents filed in court cases. This case was brought to the Federal Circuit as an interlocutory appeal seeking to clarify the correct interpretation of a federal statute, 28 U.S.C § 1913. In the opinion, the panel (including Judge Lourie, Clevenger, and Hughes) unanimously affirmed a district court’s interpretation of the statute and remanded the case back to the district court for it to resolve the case using the correct interpretation. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Little Tucker Act case; four nonprecedential opinions in a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, an MSPB case, a veterans case, and a patent case; and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

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 patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions, one new case, three recent oral arguments, and two upcoming oral arguments.

As a reminder, once a month we provide an update on activity in patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. (There we also highlight non-patent cases that attract amicus brief, but only once those cases have been scheduled for oral argument.) Today, with respect to patent cases, we highlight one new opinion, a recent oral argument, and three upcoming oral arguments.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard one case that attracted amicus briefs, National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the court considered whether language added by the E-Government Act requires “a reduction in PACER fees” (the plaintiffs’ position), locks “in the status quo” in terms of fees (the district court’s holding), or authorizes an “expansion in fees” (the government’s position). Last Monday, the plaintiffs-appellants (National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center, and Alliance for Justice) and the defendant-appellee United States presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Lourie, Clevenger, and Hughes. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights coverage by the Washington Post and Politico of Monday’s oral arguments in a case addressing whether the federal government charges excessive fees for accessing federal court documents and a comment on the need for the Federal Circuit to use en banc rehearings too resolve core patent questions such as those involving claim construction.

This week (and Tuesday of next week) the Federal Circuit will hold 16 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 56 cases. Amicus briefs were filed, however, in only one of these cases. That case, National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States, has drawn attention because it is a challenge to the user fees charged by the federal judiciary for access to court records via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. Notably, it has attracted five amicus briefs filed by a combined 51 third parties including various companies, media organizations, library associations, non-profit advocacy organizations, retired federal judges, and a retired U.S. senator.