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 three opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: an Equal Pay Act case, a vaccine case, and a veterans case. Additionally, we highlight two new patent cases, new briefing in two patent cases, and oral arguments in nine cases last and this month. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, three dismissals, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a dismissal by the Court of International Trade for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Three of the nonprecedential opinions dismiss appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims—two for lack of jurisdiction and one for lack of a final judgment. Another two of the nonprecedential opinions affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The last nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found that a collection of imported products infringed certain patents, but also found certain redesigns not to infringe. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

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

• an article discussing how a “consortium of patent lawyers and small startups are sounding the alarm at the Federal Circuit over a ruling last year”; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit ruling that “Intel failed to show that Koniklijke Philips NV’s patent . . . was obvious, and thus invalid, based on several previously published inventions.”

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

• a blog post providing an analysis of the oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster, which “involved a provision in the federal Lanham Act that directs the Patent and Trademark Office . . . to refuse to register any mark that identifies ‘a particular living individual’”;
• an article discussing “an opinion dealing largely with how much a patent owner can rely on information and belief-based allegations rather than facts”; and
• an article calling a district court opinion “a decision based on ignorance of patent law that must be overturned.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Utah. Finally, the court released three nonprecedential orders. One denies a petition to transfer a case to the Northern District of California; one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denies petitions for writs of mandamus; and one denies a petition and cross-petition to appeal from an order of the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. For the first time during the Supreme Court’s current term, the Court granted certiorari in a case decided by the Federal Circuit, but notably it did so only to vacate the Federal Circuit’s judgment and remand the case for further consideration of an Appointments Clause challenge. As for still-pending petitions, since our last update a pro se party filed a petition. Additionally, a petitioner filed a reply in support of its petition, which raised two questions related to retroactive application of inter partes review and the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances. Lastly, the Supreme Court denied two petitions: one filed by a pro se petitioner and one in a patent case raising an Appointments Clause challenge. 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 the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update two new petitions were filed: one in a patent case presenting questions regarding the Appointments Clause and one in a pro se patent case presenting a question concerning patent eligibility. In addition, two amicus briefs were filed in the same case in support of the petitioner, who raised questions concerning inter partes review. Moreover, two briefs in opposition were filed in patent cases raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the government filed a supplemental brief in a government contracts case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update three new petitions were filed in patent cases addressing eligibility, procedure in inter partes review proceedings, and the printed publication category of prior art. Additionally, the Court requested responses to two pending petitions involving challenges to the use of administrative patent judges under the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, we are still waiting for the Court to issue opinions in the two pending patent cases. As for petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case raising an Appointments Clause challenge; one respondent filed a brief in opposition to a petition raising questions related to an inmate’s right to assert patent infringement; the government submitted a waiver of its right to respond to a petition in a pro se case; and the Court requested a response to a petition raising questions related to preclusion. Additionally, four petitioners filed reply briefs in cases presenting questions related to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction, the Appointments Clause, and retroactivity in agency adjudication.

Here are the details.

• Patent Lawsuits on the Rise – Even with the disruption due to the coronavirus, patent lawsuits are up 9% year-over-year.
• Google and Sonos at odds over Wireless Speakers Fight – Google countersued Sonos over an alleged patent infringement in an escalating legal battle between the two companies.
• Federal Circuit finds no infringement in an Interactive Guitar Game– The court in Ubisoft Entertainment, S.A. v. Yousician Oy, affirmed the dismissal of Yousician’s claims of infringement because the claimed invention was improperly directed to an abstract idea.

Here’s the latest.