FedCircuitBlog

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 latest litigant to head to the U.S. Supreme Court with complaints about the Federal Circuit’s practice of issuing one-sentence Rule 36 orders”; and
• an article about the Federal Circuit affirming a judgment that a “patented configuration for a gambling terminal ‘Tic-Tac-Fruit’ game was abstract and thus ineligible for protection.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument next week in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board and whether a filing deadline is jurisdictional. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case, two briefs in opposition were filed in a patent case and in a veterans case, and an amicus brief was filed in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. Finally, the Court denied petitions in a pro se case and in a 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 granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case, a reply brief was filed in a patent case, and four amicus briefs were filed in two Merit Systems Protection Board cases presenting the same question. 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 granted cases, a merits brief was filed in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board and whether a filing deadline is jurisdictional or allows for equitable tolling. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in three other Merit Systems Protection Board cases, a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case, and an amicus brief was filed 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 granted cases, an opening merits brief was submitted in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in one patent case and two pro se cases, a reply brief was filed in a patent case, and the Court denied certiorari in a veterans case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition for rehearing concerning the standard of determining whether a claim is a “coined term” and two denials. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition for rehearing in a patent case concerning the presumption of nexus related to secondary considerations of non-obviousness, along with three denials of rehearing in cases raising questions related to Rule 36, anticipation, secondary considerations of non-obviousness, and design patent infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions for rehearing in patent cases presenting questions related to secondary considerations of non-obviousness and inconsistency between Board and district court claim constructions, along with a denial of a petition in another patent case presenting a question related to eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the links to the order and summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinions address appeals from judgements of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to the patentability of claims. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment in a patent case decided by a Texas district court. One nonprecedential order transfers a case, and two are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.