FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other comes in an appeal from a decision by the Federal Bureau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 Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a joint motion to remand a case and the other two dismiss appeals.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Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and seven nonprecedential orders.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 Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in patent cases, and one comes in a government contract case. Of the nonprecedential orders released today, three address notices of non-participation in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and among other things these orders ask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 Two of the other nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmance, while two dismiss appeals.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.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 in a patent case raising a question related to what prior art may be considered during an inter partes review proceeding; four recent oral arguments in two trade and two takings cases; four new cases, including a federal personnel case, a government contract case, a trademark case, and a trade case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Notably, on Friday the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a veterans case. In addition, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to motions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 60, the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility, and the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in patent cases; the court received waivers of the right to respond to petitions in one patent case and two pro se cases; an amicus brief was filed in a case presenting a question related to the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 in appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case that we have been watching because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding that certain patent claims are unpatentable in light of prior art. The oral argument focused on “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 argued 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. The Federal Circuit, however, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Lourie and Judge Stark, affirmed the Board. It found no error in the Board’s unpatentability determinations using, as the relevant date for prior art purposes, the abandoned patent application’s filing date. This is our opinion summary.

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.