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, new petitions were filed in three patent cases and three pro se cases. The Court also received a waiver of the right to respond in one of those patent cases and an amicus brief in another patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion comes in a contract case and reverses and remands a final decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The second precedential opinion comes in a tax case “involv[ing] the procedural mechanisms for filing a tax refund for penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.” The nonprecedential opinion affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and dismisses-in-part a case addressing allegedl federal trade dress infringement and federal trademark liability for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions.