FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article providing a midyear report on “the most notable trademark decisions so far this year”;
• an article about the effects of a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in a trademark case dealing with tacking;
• a blog post summarizing takeaways from a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in a patent case addressing enablement, written description, and anticipation; and
• a blog post discussing the America Invents Act of 2011 and how it has allegedly given the Chinese government “a lethal tool for snuffing out the business interests of competitive American firms.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trademark case. In it, the court vacated and remanded a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding whether an appellant’s trademark was likely to be confused with three other trademarks the appellee had already registered. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petition cases, one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a case raising questions about procedure; a brief in opposition was submitted in another patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in two patent cases.

Here is a special report on recent news and commentary related to the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, an important patent eligibility case decided by the Federal Circuit in 2019. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing how the Supreme Court declined to hear “a case that may have clarified the circumstances under which inventions warrant a patent”;
• another article highlighting how “[a]ttorneys say the denial was particularly frustrating because all parties charged with interpreting this law have said it’s still unclear”; and
• a third article addressing how the denial “leaves it up to Congress and the USPTO to take action to fix some of the unpredictability.”

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 a veterans case in support of the petitioner. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case concerning alleged fraud on the court and a pro se veteran’s case; a waiver of a right to respond was filed in the patent case; another waiver of a right to respond was filed in a veterans case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case concerning eligibility; and a petitioner filed a reply in support of a petition in another patent case raising questions about 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, three new petitions have been filed: one in a patent case, one filed by a pro se petitioner in a veterans case, and one by another pro se petitioner in an employment case. Additionally, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case raising questions concerning patent eligibility; a brief in opposition was filed in another patent eligibility case; a waiver of a right to respond was filed in a patent case concerning standing; and a petitioner filed a reply in a case raising a question about the Chevron doctrine’s applicability in veterans cases. Finally, the Court denied three petitions: two in takings cases and one in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a whistleblower retaliation case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And the third comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Stoll dissented-in-part from the holding in the patent case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus, ordering the Eastern District of Texas to require transfer of a patent case. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and links to the Rule 36 judgments.