FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, six amicus briefs were filed in George v. McDonough, a case raising a question related to clear and unmistakable error in the context of review of denials of veterans’ claims for benefits. As for still-pending petitions, one new petition was filed by a pro se petitioner; two amicus briefs were filed in a case related to patent eligibility, including a brief filed by a former Federal Circuit judge; and two reply briefs were filed: one in a veterans case and one in a trade case. Finally, four waivers of right to respond were filed and the Court denied a petition in a case concerning patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions have been filed, both in patent cases. In addition, five amicus briefs were submitted in a case presenting a challenge to the Chevron doctrine. Also, the government waived its right right to respond in a pro se case. Here are the details.

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

• an article analyzing cases and an emerging trend regarding how “the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board is only the first hurdle in what is a long game for patent owners”;
• a blog post detailing how the “Supreme Court and Judicial Conference consider[ed] Judge Albright’s problematic patent court”;
• another blog post evaluating the “Federal Circuit’s PTAB appeals statistics through November 30, 2021”; and
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit “rejected arguments the U.S. Army’s improper handling of [a government contract] award prejudiced it.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief and the court scheduled the oral argument to occur in February. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. As for petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received two new petitions raising questions relating to the standard for enhanced damages and the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. The court also received responses to two petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to the interpretation of a forum selection clause, a writ of mandamus, and comparable licenses and royalty calculations, and another petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to the proper interpretation of a forum selection clause and whether it impacts inter partes review. The court also invited a response and received three new amicus briefs in a case that raised a question related to the written description requirement. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions relating to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s analysis of the non-obviousness requirement, inter partes review estoppel, and the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding based on a teaching away finding. Here are the details.

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

• an article detailing the Federal Circuit’s grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus “[i]n its latest rebuke of Judge Alan Albright’s approach to motions to transfer cases out of his court”;
• another article focusing on how the Federal Circuit ruled that a “suit alleging that a Fujifilm subsidiary infringed its patent on an interface for digital mammography” may proceed;
• a blog post discussing how “[w]illful patent infringement can result in enhanced, and in some case treble, damages but not in every instance”; and
• another article noting that the Federal Circuit “affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction that would have forced the accused infringer to seek dismissal of its petitions for inter partes review.”

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 two dispositions in patent cases appealed from federal district courts and a disposition in a takings case appealed from Court of Federal Claims. Here are the details.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case we have been following because it attracted dueling amicus briefs. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Prost, and Chen. On appeal, Kannuu argued that due to a forum selection clause in a contract among the parties the Southern District of New York should have ordered Samsung to seek dismissal of inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung. Judge Chen authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the denial of the requested relief. Judge Newman authored a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary. 

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

• an article focusing on the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision overruling a district court’s conclusion that [patent] claims were directed to ineligible subject matter;
• a blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that a forum selection clause did not apply to inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
• an article addressing how the Federal Circuit found that “claims of a patent covering an artificial heart valve were erroneously held to be unpatentable by the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board”; and
• a blog post discussing how “the Federal Circuit affirmed an exclusion order by the [International Trade] Commission” in a patent case.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions. Two of the opinions came in veterans cases appealed from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The third opinion came in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.