FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also late yesterday and this morning released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Guest Post by Greg Reilly

For over a decade, patent litigation has been surprisingly concentrated in a single federal district court. At one time, almost half of the nation’s patent litigation occurred in small towns in eastern Texas.1 Now, 20% of patent litigation occurs before a single judge based in Waco, Texas.2 This concentration of patent litigation is not the result of the inherent characteristics of these districts but instead of the affirmative efforts of particular judges to attract patent cases to their courthouses.3 Scholarly commentary of this forum selling and patent litigation concentration, including by myself, has been largely critical.4 The primary objection is that the districts and judges competing for patent litigation improperly skew procedures in favor of the patentees who make the forum choice.5

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion affirms the Board’s refusal to register a stylized form of “.SUCKS” as a trademark. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.  

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and it addresses the Board’s determination that claims are invalid for obviousness. The second opinion comes in veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and it addresses the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denial of compensation to a veteran. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the United States Court of International Trade. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in employment and veteran cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims respectively. Finally, the court also issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one precedential opinion in patent case appealed from a district court, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance of a decision by the United State International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions of the opinions and the summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential opinions in three patent cases, a trademark case, a veterans case, and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. And the court released five Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a list of the summary affirmances.

• Full Fed. Circ. Won’t Review Motion Sensor Patent Fight – The full Federal Circuit chose not to disturb a panel’s decision to uphold part of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that struck down several claims of a motion sensor patent.
• Good News/Bad News: Patent Owners and Petitioners Both Make Gains in CAFC Uniloc Decision – Experts analyze the effects of the Federal Circuit’s recent Uniloc 2017 v. Facebook Inc. decision that raised numerous estoppel issues.

Here’s the latest.

Guest Post by Kristen Osenga

In any given year, the Federal Circuit covers a wide spectrum of issues in patent law, and 2020 was no different. Of course, a lot about 2020 was different — including seeing the Court hold (and now livestream) telephonic arguments — but most of the patent cases decided were similar in type to other years . . . a little patent-eligible subject matter, a little jurisdiction and venue, a case about infringement of standard essential patents, and a bit of deciding what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can and cannot do. There were no real blockbuster cases in 2020 (other than maybe the Arthrex denial of rehearing, more on that later). This could be due to the pandemic, or maybe it is a sign that patent law is settling in for a bit. Of course, that does not mean the law has settled in the right place, but that is a different issue for a different day.

For today, a few cases are worth highlighting from the Federal Circuit’s 2020 patent opinions. To be clear, this is not an exhaustive review, but rather simply a short selection noting some of the more important patent cases decided last year.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing eligible subject matter. Additionally, the court issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in a government contract case involving a bid protest. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the Rule 36 judgments.