FedCircuitBlog

Late last Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The court did not release any opinions or orders today given the Juneteenth holiday. Here is the link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in a veterans case. In the opinion, the court held “that the claim-filing effective-date provisions of [38 U.S.C.] § 5110 are unconstitutional” as applied to the appellant based on his “very rare set of circumstances.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. In addition, late yesterday and this morning the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

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

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., (2) ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.
• Nine briefs were filed in response to the petition in United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC.
• Three replies were submitted to the Court, the first by BioDelivery in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., the second by Chamberlain in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., and the third by Campbell in Campbell v. United States.
• One supplemental brief was filed by Ameranth in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• Lastly, nine waivers of right to respond were submitted to the Court in three cases: (1) United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC, (2) Sanders v. United States, and (3) Michelson v. Department of the Army.

Here are the details.

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

• In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Google and Oracle submitted supplemental briefs addressing the correct standard of review for the second question presented in the case.
• The following two petitions for writ of certiorari were submitted to the Supreme Court: (1) Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. and (2) Essity Hygiene and Health AB v. Cascades Canada ULC.
• Arthrex, Inc. submitted its reply to the Court in the Appointments Clause petition Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
• In The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Techtronic filed its brief in opposition to the petitioner’s argument for granting certiorari.

Here are the details.

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

• The Supreme Court received one new petition for writ of certiorari this week in the patent case Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Both the Honorable Randall R. Rader and High 5 Games submitted two new amicus briefs in support of the petitioner to the Court in the petition The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co.

Here are the details.

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

• The Supreme Court received responses for the following five petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission, and (5) Ford Motor Co. v. United States.
• The Supreme Court received replies in the four following petitions: (1) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., (3) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., and (4) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
• In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., Baxter International filed an amicus brief in favor of the respondent.

Here are the details.

• A Patent Emergency – A new Supreme Court petition declared that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of patent eligibility law is a “patent emergency”.
• Federal Circuit OKs Do-Over in Apple Decryption Case – In light of Arthrex, the Federal Circuit remanded a case for a new hearing before different PTAB judges.
• Federal Circuit Dismisses Challenges to Nonfinal Patent Office decision – The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s lack of jurisdiction.

Here’s the latest.

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

• The Chamberlain Group filed a new petition in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., et al.
• In Baley v. United States, the United States and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations both filed briefs in opposition.
• In Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Celgene Corp. submitted its reply to the petition of certiorari.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here is a list of the judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions related to waiver of the prevailing arguments made in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., non-obviousness, and argument-type prosecution history estoppel, two letters filed by the government in response to arguments related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two amicus briefs in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. itself, and the denial of four petitions. We have the details.