FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, eight nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases and one pro se case. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for summary judgment; three transfer cases; and four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the summary affirmance.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases and one pro se case. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants an unopposed motion by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to remand a case back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other similarly grants a motion by the government to remand a case back to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders 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. With respect to granted cases, earlier this month the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, and we have since posted our argument recap. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; waivers of the right to respond were filed in two patent cases, a case addressing Rule 36, and two pro se cases; briefs in opposition were filed in two patent cases; replies in support of petitions were filed in a patent case, a case addressing Rule 36, a veterans case, and a case addressing procedure; and six amicus briefs were filed in a case addressing Rule 36. In addition, the Court denied the petition in the case addressing procedure. Here are the details.

Late yesterday and today the Federal Circuit released one precedential and two nonprecedential opinions. All come in patent cases. The precedential opinion affirms a district court’s decision to delist patents from the Orange Book because the patents “contain no claim for the active ingredient at issue” but instead “are directed to components of a metered inhaler device.” The nonprecedential opinions affirm a judgment of patent infringement and damages by a district court and affirm a judgment of invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, in turn, the court released five nonprecedential opinions, four in patent cases and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released three nonprecedential orders granting summary affirmances under Rule 36 and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed. One comes in a patent case raising a question under the Administrative Procedure Act relating to inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other petition comes in a pro se case. The Court also received a new brief in opposition in a case concerning appellate procedure, an amicus brief in a patent case, and waivers of the right to respond in two other patent cases. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in three patent cases and one pro se case. Here are the details.

Last night and today, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinions come in a patent case and a government contract case. The nonprecedential orders are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case that attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which found all challenged patent claims unpatentable. The argument focused on the fourth issue presented, “whether the Board erred in determining that . . . a published and later abandoned U.S. patent application . . . can be applied in an IPR as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).” That statutory subsection says that “a petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent . . . only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” What the appellant and one amicus brief argue is that a patent application that never issues as a patent is not a patent nor does it qualify as a printed publication when its publication date is after the effective filing date of the patent subject to the inter partes review proceeding. Judge Lourie, Prost, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Yesterday evening, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, two orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California, while the second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, links to the Rule 36 judgments, and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit heard “arguments at law schools and courthouses around the San Francisco Bay Area this week”;
• an article highlighting “the intense debate over restoring injunctive relief for patent holders,” noting how “two different camps within the pro-strong-patent rights community have emerged”;
• an article discussing yesterday’s oral argument in a case addressing whether inter partes review proceedings may consider abandoned patent applications published after the filing date of a patent under review; and
• a blog post discussing how the Patent Office “recently terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent use of a practitioner’s signature.”