FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and an erratum. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, all four also come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, one denies a petition for writ of mandamus and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, as well as links to dismissal and erratum.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 a new opinion in a patent case raising a question related to what prior art may be considered during an inter partes review proceeding; four recent oral arguments in two trade and two takings cases; four new cases, including a federal personnel case, a government contract case, a trademark case, and a trade case. Here are the details.

Late the last two days, the Federal Circuit released nonprecedential orders dismissing cases. Additionally, this morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware and three nonprecedential opinions. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases, while the third comes in a veterans case.  Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in pro se cases and the other is a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Notably, on Friday the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a veterans case. In addition, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to motions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 60, the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility, and the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in patent cases; the court received waivers of the right to respond to petitions in one patent case and two pro se cases; an amicus brief was filed in a case presenting a question related to the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 in appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument Marmen Inc. v. United States, a trade case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final antidumping duty determination that assigned a dumping margin on Marmen, a Canadian wind tower producer. Judges Prost, Taranto, and Chen heard oral argument. This is our argument recap.

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari presented in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. The Supreme Court indicated it will consider the following question: “Given the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim ‘involving . . . retired pay’ under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(l)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?” What follows the break is the relevant background and question presented by Soto’s counsel.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board as well, with one of them appealed pro se. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a petition to appeal a case from the Court of Federal Claims, one denies a similar petition, two deny petitions for writs of mandamus, and two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and all of the orders other than the dismissals, which are simply linked.

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

• a news alert reporting how “Dish Network LLC asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether courts can require attorneys to pay legal fees in exceptionally frivolous patent cases”;
• a blog post analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision where the central issue in the case “revolved around the interpretation of [35 U.S.C.] § 311(b)’s limitation that [inter partes review] challenges may be based only on ‘prior art consisting of patents or printed publications’”; and
• an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision “canceling trademarks claiming protection for the pink color of ceramic hip components.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.