FedCircuitBlog

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, three new en banc petitions were filed. The first raises claim construction questions; the second raises questions related to deference to the Office of Personnel Management; and the first 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Today, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions.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 In the second nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the third nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order granting a motion for summary affirmance and three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals.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This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third is a design patent case appealed from the Eastern District of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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. As for granted petitions, a response brief was filed in a pending en banc case raising questions regarding how to establish standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. As for pending petitions, a new petition has been filed in a patent case; a response has been filed to a petition raising multiple questions regarding patent ownership and a district court’s authority to prohibit parties from sharing part of a claim construction with a jury; and an amicus brief has been filed in support of a petition raising 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. Here are the details.

Here is an 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. With respect to these cases, since our last update we highlight five new opinions, four in patent cases and one in a government contract case; two new argument recaps, one in a trademark case and one in a trade case; and three new cases, one a design patent case and two utility patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.  

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, each dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, two summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinions comes in a patent case on appeal from the International Trade Commission. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in a patent cases, while one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other comes in an appeal from a decision by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a joint motion to remand a case and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and seven nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Northern District of West Virginia. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in patent cases, and one comes in a government contract case. Of the nonprecedential orders released today, three address notices of non-participation in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and among other things these orders ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office whether it will intervene in the appeals to defend the PTAB’s decisions. Two of the other nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmance, while two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders addressing the notices of non-participation in appeals, as well as links to the grants of summary affirmance and dismissals.