FedCircuitBlog

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 a new opinion in a patent infringement case, a recent oral argument in a case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a new response and reply brief filed in a patent case, and two new patent cases that attracted amicus briefs. Here are the details.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted five amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Northern District of California holding several patent claims invalid and two patents unenforceable based on prosecution laches. The panel, consisting of Federal Circuit Judges Lourie and Prost and District of New Jersey Chief Judge Renée Bumb, reversed in part and affirmed in part. This is our opinion summary.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling that President “Trump does not have the authority to use emergency economic powers to impose taxes on imports”;
• an article reporting how Judge “Newman’s fellow active judges who make up the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council voted unanimously to keep her from hearing new cases”;
• a blog post commenting on a recent Federal Circuit decision reversing a district court’s finding with respect to unenforceability due to prosecution laches; and
• an article highlighting a recent Federal Circuit opinion that vacated a refusal to register the f-word as a trademark.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released an en banc precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The en banc opinion addresses the law governing standing to file a bid protest in a government contract dispute. Judge Hughes authored the majority opinion on behalf of himself and six other judges. Notably, Judge Hughes authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by three other judges. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases, one appealed from a district court and one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.

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, one in a patent infringement case and one in a takings case. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in two patent cases, a new reply brief filed in another patent case, and a new amicus brief in another patent case. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted multiple amicus briefs. The case, Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., raises questions concerning prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the boundaries of judicial discretion at trial. Judges Prost, Reyna, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 9 panels to consider 54 cases. Of the 54 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 35 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This Court Week, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

As we noted earlier this week, two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second of those cases is Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a patent case. In this case, Sonos appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning prosecution laches, written description and priority dates, and summary judgment of invalidity. This is our argument preview.

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 a new opinion issued in a patent case resolving a dispute related to claim construction, a new amicus brief in a patent case addressing discretionarily denials of petitions for inter partes review based on parallel district court litigation, a response brief in a patent case involving a dispute related to claim construction, and an intervenor brief filed by the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in a case involving an appeal and cross-appeal from an inter partes review proceeding. Finally, the court scheduled oral argument next month in two cases that attracted amicus briefs. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and one errata. In the precedential opinion, the court dismissed an appeal from the International Trade Commission for lack of jurisdiction. Both of the nonprecedential opinions were appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board following inter partes review proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and errata.