FedCircuitBlog

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Last night and today, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances.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 The nonprecedential orders are all dismissals.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Yesterday evening, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, two orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California, while the second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection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.”

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

• a blog post discussing a case set for argument this week in which the “Federal Circuit is set to decide an important issue regarding the scope of prior art that can be considered during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• an article reporting how the Supreme Court recently “turned down several petitions seeking review of decisions in patent cases, including appeals dealing with double patenting, patent eligibility and Patent Trial and Appeal Board procedures”; and
• an article highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision vacating and remanding a case because the lower court “wrongly dismissed” a claim “seeking a refund on tax penalties.”

As we mentioned on Monday, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. In this case, Lynk Labs appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding finding all challenged patent claims unpatentable. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders, which were all dismissals. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In this case, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Veterans Court. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision denying a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The second nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a district court, which found that a patent claim is invalid based on indefiniteness. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

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. Today with respect to these cases we highlight two new opinions in two patent cases and one new case that attracted an amicus brief in another patent case. We also highlight new briefing in three patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a veterans case and two patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order, a dismissal. Here is the link to the order.