FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the parties filed their en banc briefs in a pending case raising questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference in the context of a regulation adopted by the Office of Personnel Management related to overtime pay. Two amicus briefs were also filed in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Additionally, the Federal Circuit invited a response from appellants in two patent cases and denied three petitions. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also released two Rule 36 judgments and four nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential orders denied a petition for a writ of mandamus in a case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Another denied petitioners the right to appeal in a case decided by the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the remaining two nonprecedential orders released today also dismissed appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal in a patent case. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit also released five additional nonprecedential opinions in two patent cases, two veterans cases, and two cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one Rule 36 judgment, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and one nonprecedential order transferring an appeal. 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 a new opinion issued in a patent case resolving a dispute related to claim construction, a new amicus brief in a patent case addressing discretionarily denials of petitions for inter partes review based on parallel district court litigation, a response brief in a patent case involving a dispute related to claim construction, and an intervenor brief filed by the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in a case involving an appeal and cross-appeal from an inter partes review proceeding. Finally, the court scheduled oral argument next month in two cases that attracted amicus briefs. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit has scheduled oral argument in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered Court of International Trade in cases challenging his tariffs. Also three new en banc petitions have also been filed in patent cases, two appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one appealed from a district court. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in an en banc government contract case. The Federal Circuit also received two amicus briefs and the government’s reply brief in President Trump’s pending case involving tariffs, in which the en banc court granted an immediate administrative stay of the judgments and permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade. As for petitions, the court received an amicus brief in a case with a petition raising questions related to interpretation of the statute defining the power of the International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit also denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court issued an en banc opinion in a patent case. Additionally, two new en banc petitions were filed. The first raises claim construction questions and the second was filed pro se. The Federal Circuit also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to collateral estoppel, and a new response was filed in opposition to an en banc brief. One amicus brief was also filed with the Federal Circuit. Lastly, the court recently denied five petitions for en banc rehearing. Here are the details.

Today, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. In the first, the court affirmed as to a direct appeal and reversed as to a cross-appeal in a patent case. Notably, Judge Stark dissented in part from the majority’s decision to reverse as to the cross-appeal. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the third nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order granting a motion for summary affirmance and three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third is a design patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Tennessee. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court received a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility. The court also issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising a question regarding Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the relevant patent has already expired. The court has also recently denied two petitions. The first denied petition raised a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can form the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. The second denied petition raised questions concerning expert testimony to prove infringement of a means plus function element, claim construction, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.