FedCircuitBlog

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

• a piece arguing that “it’s time for the U.S. Supreme Court to address” the Federal Circuit’s “excessive use of Rule 36”;
• a blog post discussing how a recent petition for certiorari “highlights an interesting procedural quirk in Illinois law that may require Supreme Court intervention to resolve an important state law question about the scope of litigation privilege”;
• a report covering how the Supreme Court recently declined “to hear a meat slicer company’s challenge to the authority of the Federal Circuit to overturn jury verdicts in patent cases”; and
• a report covering how a “US Patent and Trademark Office executive who managed key appeals at the agency’s tribunal and previously served as solicitor accepted President Donald Trump‘s voluntary resignation off[er] for federal employees.”

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. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to enablement of prior art. The Court also received a brief in opposition in a patent case presenting a question related to the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 in appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a reply in support of a petition in a trade case, and an amicus brief in another patent case addressing alleged improper application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Notably, on Friday the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a veterans case. In addition, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to motions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 60, the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility, and the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in patent cases; the court received waivers of the right to respond to petitions in one patent case and two pro se cases; an amicus brief was filed in a case presenting a question related to the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 in appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. 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, earlier this month the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, and we have since posted our argument recap. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; waivers of the right to respond were filed in two patent cases, a case addressing Rule 36, and two pro se cases; briefs in opposition were filed in two patent cases; replies in support of petitions were filed in a patent case, a case addressing Rule 36, a veterans case, and a case addressing procedure; and six amicus briefs were filed in a case addressing Rule 36. In addition, the Court denied the petition in the case addressing procedure. 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 reporting how the Supreme Court recently “rejected a bid to review decisions invalidating a patent owned by a background-check software maker that had argued that an appellate judge’s suspension had hurt its case”;
• a blog post highlighting two Supreme Court petitions the author suggests “provide [an] opportunity to address a longstanding problem with the Federal Circuit’s practice of issuing no-opinion summary affirmances in patent cases”; and 
• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s decision “to rehear a high-profile decision that revived an artificial intelligence company’s protest over its exclusion from a $376.4 million procurement.” 

Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, oral argument in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation will take place on December 9. Since our last update, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, two new briefs in opposition were filed in a patent case and a veterans case, and seven amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases and a veterans case. In addition, the Court denied the petition in a patent case raising questions related to Judge Newman’s removal from hearing appeals, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), and eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed. One comes in a patent case raising a question under the Administrative Procedure Act relating to inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other petition comes in a pro se case. The Court also received a new brief in opposition in a case concerning appellate procedure, an amicus brief in a patent case, and waivers of the right to respond in two other patent cases. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in three patent cases and one pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed, two in patent cases and one in a pro se case. In the first patent case, the petition raises a question related to summary affirmances of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the second patent case, the question relates to personal jurisdiction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, four nonprecedential orders, and five nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. The opinion dismisses an appeal in a pro se case for lack of jurisdiction. All of the orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders and summary affirmances.