This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
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 concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “did not improperly place the burden of persuasion for proving unpatentability of proposed substitute claims . . . on [the patent owner].”
- another article highlighting an upcoming Federal Circuit argument concerning constitutional standing; and
- a blog post discussing “the scope of ‘comparison prior art’ available for the ordinary observer infringement analysis” in design patent cases.
This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s determination of no infringement and a lack of domestic industry as to one patent and, with respect to an expired patent, vacated and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss due to the patent’s expiration. Notably, in the course of analyzing infringement of the first patent, the court highlighted that “a computer-implemented claim drawn to a functional capability requires some showing that the accused computer-implemented device is programmed or otherwise configured, without modification, to perform the claimed function when in operation.” The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order denying a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion addresses issues related to estoppel as a result of inter partes review. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in a patent and employment case, and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for en banc rehearing in a patent case. Notably, with respect to the order, Chief Judge Moore wrote a concurring opinion joined by Judges Newman, O’Malley, Taranto, and Chen, while Judge Prost wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Judges Dyk and Reyna. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders denying and dismissing petitions for writs of mandamus and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders in what appear to be pro se cases. One order denied a petition for a writ of mandamus, one ordered transfer to the Third Circuit, and one dismissed a petition based on lack of jurisdiction. Here is relevant text from the three orders.
This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case decided by the International Trade Commission, a precedential opinion in a veterans case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a case decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions of the opinions.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued nonprecedential opinions in two veterans cases, a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a patent case reversing a dismissal and remanding the case to determine standing, and another a patent case affirming the denial of attorney fees. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for merits cases, highlights include an oral argument and a slew of amicus briefs, respectively, in two cases. As for petitions, only one new petition was filed, and just a handful of response and reply briefs were filed. The Supreme Court, however, denied petitions in a large number of cases, including most notably in Athena, Hikma, and HP, as we previously discussed. Here are the details.