FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases and both addressing obviousness. Additionally, the court released five nonprecedential orders, one transferring a case to another court, one summarily affirming a judgment, one granting a motion to remand a case, and two dismissing appeals. Additionally, the court released four summary affirmances and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals, summary affirmances, and the erratum.

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 since our last update. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, waivers of right to respond were filed in two pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and in two veterans cases; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases; and the Court denied certiorari in three patent cases. 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, no new petitions were filed with the Court, but the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; the Solicitor General filed a brief in opposition in two patent cases and another brief in opposition was filed by a private party in one of the same cases; two amicus brief were filed in another patent case, four amicus briefs were filed in a veterans case, and one amicus brief was filed in another patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in a patent case. Here are the details. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion and three Rule 36 judgments. In the opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the two precedential opinions, the court affirmed a judgment appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and reversed a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In the two nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit affirmed an arbitrator’s judgment and affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• an article about a Supreme Court petition asking the Court “to weigh whether former Commissioner of Patents . . . had the power to reject a request for director review”;
• another article about another petition filed with the Supreme Court asking it “to review a Federal Circuit decision affirming the partial invalidation of a footwear stitching patent challenged by rival Adidas AG”; and
• a blog post commenting on “AI tools creating inventive output.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, on Monday the Court heard oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court in three patent cases and a pro se case. The Court also denied three petitions. 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 about a Federal Circuit panel concerning whether “patents, which relate to data compression and storage,” are too abstract; and
• another article about another “Federal Circuit panel . . . discuss[ing] when a party may look behind a legal challenger to discover the ‘real party in interest.’”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in an employment case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The en banc court held that the Office of Personnel Management to date has not adopted regulations that provide for differential pay based on COVID-19 in various workplace settings. Notably, Judge Reyna dissented in an opinion joined by Judge Newman. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order transferring a case to the Ninth Circuit and another nonprecedential order dismissing two appeals. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second opinions come in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and involve issues related to the Vaccine Act and jurisdiction, respectively. The third opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders late yesterday and this morning. One transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Illinois, and the other dismisses an appeal. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.