FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders. Two transfer cases to district courts, one transfers a case to another federal appellate court, and another remands a case to the Court of International Trade. The fifth order dismisses an appeal. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders, each dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the transfer and remand orders and links to the dismissals.

• SCOTUS Denial of TCL v. Ericsson Petition Means Juries Decide Damages for SEP Infringement – The Supreme Court declined to review a Federal Circuit decision requiring jury trials for the determination of damages for past infringing activities.
• Full Federal Circuit Grapples With Right to Review VA Manual – The Federal Circuit’s first telephonic oral argument for an en banc rehearing of a case was held last Thursday.

Here’s the latest.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writs of certiorari in (1) ThermoLife International LLC v. Iancu, (2) SRAM, LLC v. FOX Factory, Inc., and (3) Halim v. United States.
• Aquesitive submitted a brief in opposition to the petition in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
• Two replies were submitted to the Court, the first by Smith & Nephew in Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. and the second by TCL in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received the four new petitions for writs of certiorari in (1) Strand v. United States, (2) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corp., (3) HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., and (4) Martin v. Department of Homeland Security.
• Both the United States in Campbell v. United States and Ericsson, Inc. in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson submitted briefs in opposition to petitions.
• Two replies were submitted to the Court, the first by Andrea Lea in Lea v. United States and the second by Jake LaTurner in LaTurner v. United States.
• Five amicus briefs were filed in three cases: (1) United States v. Arthrex, Inc., (2) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., and (3) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new petition for certiorari was filed in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two briefs in opposition were filed. One brief from Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp. and the other from the United States.
• The Supreme Court received a total of five amicus briefs this week. Four amicus briefs in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and one amicus brief in Callan Campbell v. United States.
• In Ford Motor Co. v. United States, Ford submitted its reply to the United States’ brief in opposition.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• Two new petitions were docketed by the Supreme Court this week. Those cases were B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Facebook, Inc. and Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
• The Supreme Court received four separate replies for the following petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Baley v. United States, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., and (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
• Finally, two new amicus briefs were submitted to the Court this week. The first by the Center for Auto Safety in Callan Campbell v. United States and the second by ACT | The App Association in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.

• A new petition was filed in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
• New responses were filed in (1) Celgene Corp. v. Peter, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, and (3) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC
• New replies were filed in (1) General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp. and (2) Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals LLC

Here is the latest on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one precedential opinion in a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

As a reminder, once a month we provide an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. Today with respect to these cases we highlight one opinion, briefing in six cases, a recent oral argument, and three upcoming oral arguments. (Note you can always find information related to these cases on our “Other Cases” page.) On to the update.

The Federal Circuit issued four opinions today. It issued precedential opinions in a patent case and a veterans case, and nonprecedential opinions in another veterans case and a personnel case.

Notably, the patent case is TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, a case we have been watching because it attracted a significant number of amicus briefs, as discussed previously on this blog. In short, in that case the Federal Circuit agreed with Ericsson that the district court should have held a jury trial on the appropriate “release payment” owed Ericsson for a license to Ericsson’s portfolio of standard-essential patents. By resolving the case in this manner, the court found no need to address the various issues raised in the amicus briefs about the proper calculation of payments for licenses to standard-essential patents.

Here are the introductions to the opinions.