FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted 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 four opinions: one in a patent case addressing obviousness, one in a case addressing veterans law, and two addressing bilateral tax treaties. We also identify two new patent cases, both raising questions of claim construction. We also highlight one response brief in a patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related to copyright law and inter partes review proceedings; and five new amicus briefs in a patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in cases that raised questions related to takings under state law and inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one precedential order denying a petition for rehearing en banc in a patent case, four nonprecedential orders dismissing three appeals and a petition, and one nonprecedential order remanding a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The nonprecedential opinion also comes in a case appealed from the District of Delaware involving breach of contract and tortious interference claims. Today’s order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the en banc order as well as links to the dismissals and remand.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Today, the court released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Today’s order dismisses an appeal from the Northern District of California. Here is the introduction to the opinion along with links to the orders.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., a case formerly styled Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. This is a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Netlist appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review, which resulted in the invalidation of a claim of a Netlist patent. Judges Dyk, Linn, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, one dismissal, and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. As for the nonprecedential opinions, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and one comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions along with links to the orders.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Notably, Judge Subramanian, sitting by designation, dissented. Another of the nonprecedential opinions comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; one comes in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims; and one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions along with links to the orders.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted 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 four recent opinions: one addressing injunctive relief, two addressing bilateral tax treaties and their relation to net investment income tax, and one addressing educational benefits for veterans. We also identify two new cases: one raising questions related to injunctive relief, and one raising questions related to the domestic-industry requirement. We highlight two response briefs in cases that raised questions related to inter partes reviews and obviousness; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related remedies against the United States and copyright law; and one intervenor brief in a case that raises questions related to the ability to appeal denial of institution of inter partes review. Here are the details.

This week (and, as it turns out, next Monday) is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 10 panels to consider 56 cases. Of these 56 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 36. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

Two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in September attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case. In this case, Netlist appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review, which invalidated a claim of a Netlist patent. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion as well as a link to the dismissal.