FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing how the “Senate Judiciary Committee may consider two important patent laws this week: the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act and the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)”; and
• an article highlighting a petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court “presenting the question of whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) habit of issuing one-word affirmances under Rule 36(a) is prohibited under 35 U.S.C. § 144.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner filed his reply brief in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed. One comes in a patent case raising questions related to summary judgment and Rule 36 summary affirmances. The other comes in a pro se case. Finally, one new reply in support of a petition was filed in another patent case raising a question related to the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions concerning a court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses and claim construction matters. The court also denied two petitions raising questions related to claim construction and summary judgment. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions about claim construction, summary judgment, and eligibility and two denials of petitions raising questions related to unclean hands and ANDA litigation. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the other precedential opinion affirms the Western District of Texas’s dismissal of a case for failure to state a claim. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms the dismissal of a petition for review by the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the second nonprecedential opinion affirms two final decisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board in a whistleblower case. The first nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal, while the other two nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmances under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.