FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contracts case concerning disaster-assistance funds distributions from FEMA. The court also released six nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four precedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and one involving an appeal of a district court’s order transferring a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Also, late yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case granting a petition for a writ of mandamus and ordering a district court within 30 days to issue a ruling on a motion to transfer. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one precedential order granting a motion to substitute a successor-in-interest in a design patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, one in a tax case, and one in a patent case. Additionally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of a motion to dismiss, which the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System filed on the ground of sovereign immunity in an inter partes review proceeding. The court also issued six Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here is the text of the opinion and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

• Federal Circuit Judge Newman Calls for Overhaul of Patent Law – Judge Newman advocated for patent law reform at an intellectual property conference on Friday.
• Federal Circuit Will Not Second-Guess IPR Institution Denials – The Federal Circuit confirmed its stance on refusing to review denials of inter partes review through a number of orders this week.
• Federal Circuit Grants Apple Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Transfer Uniloc Suit – Uniloc’s case against Apple will continue in California after the Federal Circuit issued a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to transfer the case.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued a precedential order issuing a writ of mandamus that directs the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent infringement suit to the Northern District of California. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

• Apple and Uniloc to Spar at Federal Circuit Over ‘Judge-Shopping’ – Apple and Uniloc are scheduled to appear before the Federal Circuit for a rare oral argument on a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• PTAB Strategies and Insights – September 2020: Does the Federal Circuit Treat APA Challenges Differently if Brought by Petitioner vs. Patent Owner? Yes. – The Federal Circuit came to different conclusions when examining final written decisions appealed by a patent owner as opposed to a petitioner.

Here’s the latest.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight five dispositions, three cases with new briefing, one recent oral argument, and two upcoming oral arguments.

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, Judges Wallach and Taranto affirmed the denial of a motion for rehearing by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In particular, they confirmed that the Board may consider § 101 eligibility challenges to proposed substitute claims in inter partes review proceedings. Judge O’Malley filed a dissenting opinion based on her view that the case is moot. Here is a summary of the opinion and dissent.